Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Chief Inspector of Schools (Annual Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce a debate on the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
There is no more an important task for policy makers and education professionals than to drive up the standards of education enjoyed by our children. It is both a moral and a practical challenge: moral, because it is plain wrong that a child who gets only one chance of education should not be stretched and tested to the limits of his or her God-given talents, and practical, because in the 21st century our children will need a better grasp of language, number and scientific principle than ever before if they as individuals or our country as a nation are to prosper.
I welcome Mr. Woodhead's report and the 4,250 individual inspections on which its conclusions are based. The creation of the Office for Standards in Education and the introduction of a programme of regular school inspections increasingly appears to be one of the most important of the Government's many education reforms. Before the reforms, the average primary school could expect to be inspected roughly once every 200 years. Now each school can expect to be inspected roughly ever four years. I applaud the vigour and independence of spirit with which Mr. Woodhead and his team approached their responsibilities.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the chief inspector finds much to praise about British schools. There is a long list of outstanding schools in all parts of the country.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that we in Lancaster have been exceedingly fortunate—as opposed to Lancashire, which is unfortunate—in that we struggled and kept our grammar schools? The result is that our primary schools never went what I would call mushy. They all had to aim at the 11-plus, and they were all good. One school—a village school—had 12 applicants for the 11-plus, of whom 11 passed and one was educationally sub-normal. That is probably one of the reasons why we have had such excellent results from school inspections in my constituency.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, is a doughty exponent of the virtues of

Lancaster. As I come from a Buckinghamshire constituency, I very much share her views on selection, and am grateful that Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire county council was able to fight successfully against the efforts of the noble Baroness Williams to impose comprehensive education on our county, despite the objections of the majority of parents.
The long list of schools to which I referred includes four in my constituency. I was delighted to write to Sir Henry Floyd school, Aylesbury grammar school, St. John's combined school in Lacey Green and Great Missenden Church of England combined school to congratulate the head teachers and all their staff on their achievement. I hope that the teaching profession will see in the list of schools published by the chief inspector a tribute to the dedication and hard work of head teachers and their staff over the previous years—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And parents and children.

Mr. Lidington: And parents and children, too, as my hon. Friend rightly reminds me.
The chief inspector also pays tribute to two schools—one in Durham and the other in Derbyshire—which had previously been described as failing, but which are now noted by inspectors to be well on the mend. That is another illustration of the way in which the system of inspection, to discover faults so that remedies can be set in hand, is working to the benefit of all children.
Mr. Woodhead says that
Standards of pupil achievement and teaching are satisfactory or better in the majority of schools",
and that
teachers are meeting National Curriculum requirements more confidently".
He also points out that there are nearly three times as many exceptionally good teachers as poor teachers in our schools.
I dwell on those positive remarks at some length, because I feel that the headlines in some newspapers that accompanied the publication of the report did not do justice to the praise that Mr. Woodhead rightly gave to particular schools and to the education system in general.
The quality of education depends crucially on teachers. No profession has a higher responsibility, and there is no nobler vocation. So I hope that the teaching profession will reject the rather glib view that the inspector's report is in some way an attack on teachers' professionalism. It is not; it is a challenge to them as professionals to reflect critically on what they do, and to learn not from Whitehall edicts, but from the best practice and the outstanding achievements of their fellow professionals in our schools, for the shortcomings that Mr. Woodhead describes are serious and need to be remedied.
Perhaps the inspector's critique can be summarised by saying that we are too tolerant of mediocrity and that our expectations of what pupils are capable of achieving in school are still far too low. The report concludes that standards need to be raised in about half our primary schools and in about 40 per cent. of our secondary schools. About 10 per cent. of the schools inspected had serious weaknesses.
The predictable excuses and protestations have been made—such as, that all we need do is chuck some extra money at the problem, that parents do not support schools or the authority of teachers any more, or that the problems of a difficult catchment area overwhelm the best endeavours of teachers.
I am prepared to acknowledge that those are all relevant points, and have some merit. But they avoid the central question: why can we identify schools of similar size, with similar budgets, similar catchment areas and the same sort of parents, some of which achieve the highest standards, while others fail dismally in the duty that they owe to pupils and parents?
In that regard, the inspector's report backs up the findings of the Select Committee on Education—and, frankly, the anecdotal evidence from our constituencies that we can all bring to the debate. Time and again, the report returns to the central issues of the leadership of the head teacher and the quality of classroom teaching.
On page 9 of the report, Mr. Woodhead says:
Some schools serving extremely deprived areas achieve very good standards. This is because they are invariably led by men and women of exceptional ability.
He tells us that such a school
believes in the possibility of success and takes responsibility for its failures
when they happen. Unsurprisingly, he concludes that
The most successful primary schools place great emphasis on initial literacy, expect all their children to learn to read and to learn quickly, and approach teaching generally in a structured and diagnostic way.
That is Mr. Woodhead's critique. What is now to be done? It is not a simple matter of passing new laws; we need a constructive partnership between the teaching profession and the Government to set right that which is wrong. I shall deal first with what I consider to be the responsibilities of the teaching profession.
The inspection evidence shows that in seven out of 10 lessons described by the inspectors as good, whole-class teaching figured strongly. Ofsted's work bears out the conclusions of other studies, notably that of the so-called three wise men, which was published in 1992, that excessive reliance on group work fritters away precious teaching and learning time. We need a better balance between whole-class, group and individual work.
We also need better planning of lessons, especially in primary schools. In one telling criticism, the inspector says that only half of primary schools have really planned how to use their teaching time to maximum effect. We must continue to question the fashion for mixed-ability teaching that took hold in the 1960s. Judging by my visits to schools in my constituency, I suspect that some commentators exaggerate the extent to which mixed-ability teaching ever became universal. Setting and streaming have always continued in some schools, and I believe that they are now growing in popularity among teachers again.
I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 166 of the report, which points out that in primary schools
grouping by ability for maths and English is common and"—
this is the key phrase—
often results in a better match of work and in higher standards.

There is much there upon which the teaching profession can usefully reflect.
The Government, too, have a tremendous responsibility. Their motto could be, "So much done, so much more to be done." They have introduced the national curriculum, national testing, regular inspections, teacher appraisal and freedom of information, through prospectuses, annual reports, test results and inspectors' reports. They have also held firmly to the principle that greater diversity in our education system will help to drive up standards, whether that is achieved through grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, specialist magnet schools or, where it is wanted, formal processes of selection.
It is worth remembering that almost all those Government initiatives during the 1980s were bitterly opposed not only by the Labour party, but by its allies—in this debate, its absentee allies—from the Liberal Democrat party. It is a great shame that the Liberal Democrats, who frequently preach to us about their concern for quality in education, cannot be bothered to send a representative into the Chamber for a debate on the annual report of the chief inspector of schools.
What further issues should the Government now tackle? First, a real problem is caused by the minority of teachers who provide poor teaching in the classroom. The inspector concludes that the performance of a small minority of teachers is consistently weak, yet it is rare for action to be taken to deal with the problem.
I do not have an instant answer. I do not know whether we need a change in the law or simply better guidance and training for heads and governors on how to deal with the problem. Governors in my constituency tell me that it is almost impossible to sack a teacher on grounds of incompetence, even when that individual has been given chance after chance, yet has consistently failed to deliver adequate standards of teaching.
I repeat that such criticisms apply only to what the inspector describes as a small minority of teachers. None the less, it cannot be in the interests of children, nor can it be good for the reputation of the teaching profession, for that state of affairs to be allowed to continue and for that small minority of consistently poor performers to go on teaching classes in our schools.
Secondly, the Government need to focus on teacher training. I welcome the review of in-service training set in hand by the Teacher Training Agency. The Government and relevant agencies need to take a rigorous approach both to initial teacher training and to INSET, to tackle the specific weaknesses revealed by the inspectors' reports.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sorry to be so greedy as to want two interventions, but again I am incredibly lucky in Lancaster, because University College of St. Martins, which used to be a teacher training college and is now a fully fledged college, has always kept to the old standards and turns out students whom I see practising in schools and who are welcome in any school in the country.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, what she says of Lancaster is true of Buckinghamshire. Her constituents will note how she again champions their achievements.
I applaud the doughty battle waged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to gain a greater share of the Government's cake for education in the forthcoming financial year. The teaching profession and all people concerned about education should know that they have a fine champion in my right hon. Friend. Paragraph 230 of the inspector's report makes some interesting comments. It states:
Few schools spend more than they should, but nearly two-fifths should be making better use of their resources … In about four schools in ten value for money is reduced because significant aspects of their work are not sufficiently cost-effective".
Whatever the arguments in any year about the total sum available for education, I hope that we can agree that we need to find ways in which to encourage a rigorous approach to value for money in individual schools, to ensure that available resources—however big the sum, it will always be finite—are used to the greatest effect.
I ask the Government to think forward and perhaps to reconsider their stand up to now on the disparity between the funding of the primary and secondary sectors. In his report, the chief inspector calls many times for primary schools in particular to do much more in terms of better planning of lessons and of in-service training, to equip primary school teachers—who tend to be generalists—with a firm grasp of subject knowledge, which the national curriculum requires them to have and which they did not require during initial teacher training. One of the problems with that historic disparity is that it inevitably means that primary schools have a less flexible timetable and less staff time available to meet those demands by the chief inspector to tackle the deficiencies in in-service training and in lesson planning.
In local education authorities of all political colours, less money is given per pupil to primary schools than to secondary schools. I understand why Ministers, not just in this Government, but in previous Governments, have always believed that it is up to the local education authority to decide how much should go to primary and secondary schools respectively and that, if the LEA changes the balance, the standard spending assessment provision will follow that choice. The strength of the chief inspector's critique and the importance of the issue are such that I ask the Government to revisit that question.

Mr. David Porter: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the disparity of funding between primary and secondary schools, will he consider the problem raised by middle schools, which exist in his constituency and in mine? A middle school may be deemed secondary, but it may have many primary pupils. The disparity of funding problem is often compounded by the wide range of age groupings in a school. That has not been dealt with by either the Government or local education authorities.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Although the systems in his constituency and mine are not the same, I have encountered comparable problems in considering budget allocations for schools in Buckinghamshire.
As more schools become grant-maintained, the Government will have to revisit the issue in any case and take a view, at least in relation to the grant-maintained sector, about the proper sum per pupil to be spent on primary as against secondary schools. That issue may be

dealt with through tilting grants for education support and training or other specific grants from the Department more towards primary than secondary education.
I have not time to dwell at length on two other problems, but they are important. One is pupil referral units. Both the chief inspector in his report and a separate study on pupil referral units by Ofsted concludes that they are failing badly in their task. Obviously, that causes concern and I hope that the Government and the education agencies will act to deal with that.
The second problem is the under-achievement of boys at all levels of our education system, from the early key stages to GCSE. In the past couple of decades, much thought and energy has rightly gone into finding ways in which to provide equal opportunities for girls. I am becoming increasingly concerned that boys seem to be lagging behind girls at all levels of compulsory education. That is especially worrying in a world where unskilled men are most likely to end up as long-term unemployed.
My conclusion is that improving standards in schools should be one of the main priorities of any Government, and that that requires a partnership between the Government and the teaching profession. The chief inspector's report shows that serious problems still afflict our education system. Pupils are still not achieving as much as they are capable of, but, at the same time, the inspectors signal that much good is being achieved by teachers and that those achievements show us the way forward to improve the opportunities and standards of achievement for everyone.

Mr. Graham Riddick: We all owe my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) a great debt, because he has raised an extremely important issue. I find it surprising that so few Opposition Members are present. Of course, an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is here, along with the Labour Whip, but the normal pattern of Wednesday morning debates is that hon. Members on both sides of House speak. Obviously, Conservative Members are pleased to have more opportunities to speak, but it is interesting that no other Back-Bench Labour Member is prepared to speak on this important issue. It may just be that Labour Members are totally confused by their party's education policies and would not know what to say.
The good news, as stated by the chief inspector in the Office for Standards in Education report, is that
Standards of pupil achievement and teaching are satisfactory or better in the majority of schools".
The bad news, however, is that
it is evident that overall standards of pupil achievement need to be raised in about half of primary and two-fifths of secondary schools. The most successful secondary schools achieve GCSE results twice as good as others in similar socio-economic circumstances and six times better than those achieved by the least successful in less favoured areas … there are still too many schools which are failing to give their pupils a satisfactory education.
My hon. Friend mentioned teaching methods, which are an important aspect of the debate, and to a certain extent the report concentrates on them. It states:
Teaching methodology needs to be improved in nearly half of primary schools and in a little more than one-third of secondary schools … About seven-tenths of good lessons involve, for example, a balance of whole class teaching and group work.


That is significant because, over the past two or three decades, there has been concentration on what people often refer to as "trendy" teaching methods that have been introduced as part of the comprehensive ideal. I was astonished to read in my newspapers this morning that the Labour party now says that comprehensive schools are a disaster. That is how the newspapers portray the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

Ms Estelle Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Riddick: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she wishes to tell us that the hon. Member for Brightside did not say that.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend did not say that, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech that was made last night by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. In that speech, he praised comprehensive schools, but made it clear that a change of name on the school gate was not enough to raise standards. He said that although comprehensive schools achieved a great deal, we must strive more and aim even higher to bring high standards of education to all our children. The words used by the hon. Gentleman do a terrible injustice to last night's speech by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Riddick: It is plain that the hon. Member for Brightside needs to express himself more clearly, because just about every newspaper has interpreted his speech as an attack on comprehensive schools and mixed-ability classes.
The comprehensive system has been imposed throughout the country by the Labour party over the past two or three decades. It did that, first, when it was in government in the 1960s and 1970s and, secondly, while it was in control of local education authorities. That system has betrayed hundreds of thousands of young people in the past two or three decades, and many of those who have been betrayed are in the most unfortunate circumstances—living in poor, rundown inner-city areas. The policies were imposed throughout the 1980s and 1990s by Labour LEAs, including the one in Sheffield, in the hon. Member for Brightside's area. Someone once told me that, when the hon. Gentleman was the leader of Sheffield council, he was one of those arguing against school uniforms in Sheffield schools. If the hon. Gentleman has changed his views, that is all to the good. However, the solutions that Labour proposes do not amount to much.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) has just confirmed that Labour wants to tinker with comprehensive schools. We hear much sweet, reassuring rhetoric, but in practice Labour's policies are fairly meaningless. It is interesting that the Secondary Heads Association refers to Labour's education policies as "naive, vague and unconvincing". It also referred to them as
simplistic, bland statements with little research or policy ideas. There is no sign of how the policies will be paid for.

That is a fairly damning criticism of Labour's education policies by the people who count, that is, head teachers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, a good head teacher who provides real leadership is crucial. Too many practitioners in education are inculcated with the comprehensive ideal. They have been sold the idea that schools are there to deliver egalitarianism. The truth is that the comprehensive system was introduced by Labour administrations as part of their social engineering approach, to try to make us all more equal in society. Of course it has not worked but, sadly, in the process many young people have been damaged.
I recently read an article by a head teacher of a good school. It was published in the wake of the Harriet Harman affair, and we all know what happened there. His argument in favour of comprehensive schools was that they were not divisive, but he put no education argument whatever, and that is regrettable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman might care to tell the House about the inspector's report.

Mr. Riddick: I am happy to return to that report, which reflects the success, in some instances, of the Government's education reforms. Those can be summed up in three words—choice, diversity and standards. We have taken steps to drive up standards. We introduced the national curriculum and formal tests in schools, and Mr. Woodhead refers to those policies in his report.
The disappointing results of English and mathematics tests for 11-year-olds, which were published last month, clearly demonstrate that more work needs to be done on those fronts. I hope that, as with secondary schools, the test results achieved by primary schools will be made public.
One of the surest ways to drive up standards is to give parents more choice and more say in the schools to which they can send their children. To exercise that choice, parents want more information about local schools. Therefore, since 1979 Conservative Governments have changed the law, to make it more difficult for LEAs to veto parents' choices. We have also introduced measures to allow the publication of examination results by schools. The introduction of nursery vouchers is a radical, further step in extending parental choice.
The recent Audit Commission report into nursery education revealed that 46 per cent. of the mothers who had been surveyed were not happy with the places that they had for their four-year-olds. Vouchers will give parents a much greater feeling of involvement in the education process and will allow them to exercise real choice about nursery places for their children.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about choice. Does he agree that it illustrates the fundamental difference between the various political parties, in that only the Conservative party is prepared to give parents more choice? Are not the other parties trying to take choice away?

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is right. We introduced city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools, and we have maintained existing grammar schools.


We have attempted to increase diversity in the system but, as far as I can see, in practice, Labour policies would stifle that diversity, and that would be detrimental to education.
I come to another aspect of the Ofsted report—religious education. That is an important issue, and in his report Mr. Woodhead states:
Provision for RE varies widely from school to school. Pupils achieve well in RE in about two-fifths of primary and nearly half of secondary schools. Standards require considerable improvement, however, in about one-sixth of primary schools and at least one-fifth of secondary schools.
That is a rather sad state of affairs.
Last year, Dr. Nicholas Tate, the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, expressed his deep concern about religious education when he said:
the key problem is a failure to take the subject seriously and a blinkered view of the world which dismisses anything to do with religion as relics from the infancy of mankind, unworthy of serious study … even in terms of basic knowledge we appear to be far advanced in becoming a religiously illiterate society.
Baroness Cox in another place revealed that a recent Gallup poll found that 49 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds had no idea what Good Friday commemorated and 79 per cent. did not know what happened on Palm Sunday. That is very sad, and we ought to be taking more steps to try to improve matters.
I suggest that the problem is that religious education is something of a mishmash. My local authority, Kirklees, recently published its guide to RE for its schools. I would not for a moment want to criticise that document; much thought and effort clearly went into its production and it basically follows the statutory guidelines on RE.
At key stage 1, children have to study Christianity plus one other faith; at key stage 2, Christianity plus two other faiths; and at key stages 3 and 4 Christianity plus five other faiths. The law says that Christianity should be the predominant religion taught in schools. If I were to criticise the document, I would say that that predominance of Christianity does not come through. We need to consider the matter more closely. Children should learn about Christianity and the Bible, especially in the early years. It is not realistic to suggest that young children should learn about other faiths. Learning about other faiths should come later, in key stages 3 and 4.
There is an interesting debate going on in the Muslim community. Muslims want their children to be taught predominantly Islam in RE classes, and they have a very strong case. In The Daily Telegraph recently, Mr. Mukadam, who is one of those fighting for predominantly Islam RE teaching in the Birmingham area, said:
Mr. Mogra"—
who is the teacher—
teaches our RE from an Islamic perspective. A multi-faith lesson is a confusing mishmash offering nothing to promote spiritual or moral development.
Multi-faith lessons are more of a secular approach teaching that all religions are equal. We believe that Islam is the true religion. That is what our children are taught at home and it is only natural that the teaching is continued at school".
It seems unrealistic, and frankly not right, to try to force Muslims to adopt the Christian faith. Muslim parents are therefore perfectly entitled to expect that their children learn predominantly about Islam at school. I would argue that case.
I would also argue the other side of the coin, that much greater emphasis should be placed on Christianity in the majority of schools where most pupils are not from a different religious background. Muslims should have more teaching of Islam in their classes and Christianity should be emphasised more in all other pupils' RE classes.
This has been a useful and timely debate. Mr. Woodhead and Ofsted are doing a very good job. They are trying to improve standards, and I wish them well in their efforts. I especially wish the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), well in his efforts. I know that Ministers are absolutely determined to give parents more choice, drive up standards and create more diversity in education. Having listened over recent years to what Labour education spokesmen have had to say, I believe that it is apparent that parents can trust only Ministers in a Conservative Government to give them choice and diversity and to drive up standards.

Mr. David Porter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on two counts—first, on securing this debate and, secondly, on representing a constituency in the only Conservative-controlled shire county in the land.
The Office for Standards in Education has played a key part in the necessary changes that have had to be made in our education system during the past 15 or more years. No one owes this country a living and no one owes an individual in it a living. That is the economic reality of life today that we have had to learn over the past 15 years. Ensuring that schools and children reach certain standards is self-evidently a basic necessity and Ofsted has begun to deliver that.
I am glad that there is no longer a debate about whether there should be an Ofsted or an equivalent to inspect schools as Ofsted does. There was certainly criticism and some uncertainty about the idea at the outset, and even now there is no doubt that much stress is put on teachers in advance of an inspection, which Chris Woodhead has described as a "neurotic" reaction. That is not an overstatement in some instances and needs to be taken account of. Many of the teachers I have talked to in my constituency feel that, with hindsight, the inspection was worth it but that there was tremendous strain in the long run-up to it. They and the head teachers often complain about the excessive bureaucracy involved in preparing for the Ofsted inspection, which is quite expensive and time consuming, and the purpose of which they do not always appreciate. That could be addressed in future reports.
Some schools in my north Suffolk constituency have had some excellent results—a real vindication of schools, teachers and Ofsted. The critical reports are also a vindication of Ofsted and the four-yearly inspection system. None the less, the system could be improved. The very style of the inspector's report suggests that the process is evolutionary and open to development.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said, the Secondary Heads Association has suggested that head teachers and their schools should have a direct input in the inspection process if secondary school standards are to improve. Its new document, which is based on the "sometimes traumatic" introduction of the new inspection system, says that the present round of


inspections are about accountability rather than school development. Instead, it proposes a twin-track approach of external inspections running alongside a continuing process of school self-review and evaluation. Both have a place, but school evaluations need to dovetail with external inspection, not replace it.
The association also criticised the standards of some of the inspection teams and said that there are sometimes conflicts of interest when, for example, local authority teams inspect schools in their own area. There is also concern about the percentage of teams that are comprised of local education authority people who win the contracts. Although there are uneven standards of expertise, it will—perhaps—settle down as the process moves forward.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does not it seem especially unfortunate that a local authority team should inspect a grammar school that the authority had consistently tried to close?

Mr. Porter: That is certainly one of the unfortunate consequences of so many home-grown teams. Unfortunately, I have had no such experience in my area as it has no grammar schools.
Will the Department reconsider the system for the four-yearly visits? The whole school inspection was vital at the beginning and I accept that, in a primary school, a generation of children and perhaps several staff will have moved on within four years, but once the original whole school inspection has been carried out, the next inspection—four years later—could be devoted to particular weaknesses that were highlighted in the previous inspection. In addition, or instead, it could concentrate on particular issues that reflect current concern, such as numeracy, reading, science or whatever.
It has been suggested—in the jargon—that Ofsted inspections are hit-and-run affairs. It has been made quite clear that, after an inspection, a school must respond with an action plan designed to improve standards. The chief inspector says that there are clear signs that the processes of inspection and action planning are helping schools to improve teaching methods. However, they need further development. They should be followed up in a much more structured way to take account of feedback on the initial report from teachers and parents, who often read the reports with concern. There needs to be more direct input from teachers at the time of the inspection. The whole process needs to be seen as a professional development tool, in the same way as teacher appraisal. It also needs to be seen as a tool for developing the professional expertise of heads and deputy heads.
The Government intend to promote various ways in which the inspections can be better targeted—which I welcome—and which need emphasising at this stage. Inspectors will report examples of excellent or very poor teaching to the head. That is welcome, but it needs to be followed up to ensure that action has been taken to correct the teaching or to spread the examples of good practice around the school.
I expect that the Government will say that inspectors will pay special attention to weak schools and make return visits. Often, however, a particular department or area, not the whole school, is weak. That could slip through the net under the present system.
We take a great deal of notice of what parents and governors say, but we sometimes forget that many of our secondary school pupils are quite able to articulate what is happening in the classroom. Their views should be taken into account. I refer not only to sixth formers but to younger children, who also have a view. The children are the experts in the education system, yet the present inspection system does not take account of their views.
The changes of the past 10 years have put an incredible amount of stress and pressure on teachers, other staff, governors, local education authorities, parents and children, but the point is that the changes have been necessary because the world has changed. Further reforms are needed because the world does not stand still. There is no such thing as a vacuum in education. Currently, however, there is a need for a period of consolidation and less change. The report is a step towards a balance between consolidation and further reform.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for initiating the debate, which is further evidence that education rides high in the political debate and that, at long last, that debate is very much on Conservative terms. For too long, despair has prevailed about our failure as a nation to provide excellent education for all. The best in British education is among the best education in the world—there can be no doubt about that. Grammar schools have survived in Kent and Buckinghamshire and they figure among the very best in the recently published league tables. It is significant that, time and again, grammar schools are at the top of the range.

Mr. Lidington: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that among the outstanding schools listed by the chief inspector is Holmer Green upper school in Buckinghamshire—a secondary modern, in the old parlance. That shows how, in a well-managed system, not only grammar schools but non-selective schools can achieve high standards through good teaching and sound leadership.

Mr. Arnold: Indeed. There are similar examples in Kent. Well over half of our education is of a high quality, which shows that both grammar and many other schools are succeeding, but we should be concerned about the fact that some 30 per cent. of our youngsters leave education inadequately trained for the modern world. We must ask why that happens—and the answer is social engineering.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend is touching on a point mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I want to highlight another point about grammar schools, which our hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) touched on. More than a decade ago, I was the chairman of the Wirral schools committee. Although I now have nothing to do with that authority, in the run-up to the 1979 general election, the overwhelming majority of parents—irrespective of their political persuasion—were keen to keep the remaining grammar schools. I am sure it was the same in other areas. It was only because a Conservative Government were elected in 1979 that parents were given the option of sending their children to grammar schools.

Mr. Arnold: That is right; indeed, the same was true in Kent. It has kept its grammar schools and success has ensued.
As I was saying, 30 per cent. of our youngsters are being let down, to the detriment of the country, because of social engineering in schools—in the structure of schools and in the teaching methods employed in them. Unfortunately, the teaching establishment has made unfashionable the teaching approach taken in the past—for example, the basic principles that pupils should face the front and that there should be whole-class teaching. There needs to be a properly structured and diagnostic education system in the classroom.
We seem to have turned our backs on the very basics such as the three Rs. Surely we should be educating our youngsters through the proper teaching of phonetics and through whole-class reading. Those practices have been highly successful in the past and we should return to them. Reading and writing are important.
With arithmetic, we should revert to teaching through the use of exercises. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement on the use of calculators. Although they are marvellous—we all use them—too many young people fail to understand magnitudes in maths. If they press the wrong button, they still think that the answer is correct—whereas if they had a concept of magnitude, they would realise that the answer could not possibly be correct. It is rather like the old computer adage: garbage in, garbage out. If they put the wrong data into the calculator, they will get the wrong result. We are not giving our youngsters the necessary sense of magnitude to ensure that they recognise when the answer is wrong.
There is a weird insistence on small groups in the classroom. When we go into primary schools, we see children grouped around tables, which inevitably means that a proportion of them have their backs to the teacher. We all know that the little darlings will follow their own interests and misbehave if given half a chance. Insisting on small groups is expecting teachers to be like jugglers, keeping many plates rotating in the air. They are so busy doing that that they are unable to carry out their teaching effectively.
We all know that thousands of excellent teachers cope with those conditions and operate small groups in classrooms—I have seen many of them in my own constituency—but the fact is that that practice loads the dice against many teachers, who cannot cope with it. Too many of our youngsters idle their way through school, which is the cause of the 30 per cent. or so of youngsters who come out of schools ill educated.
The current situation has come about not least through teacher training and the impositions on teachers of local education authority inspectors. Over the years, I have heard of far too many teachers who very effectively applied old-fashioned methods of teaching being told by local education authority inspectors to desist from using them. Ultimately, teachers are human, and they will put their career high on their scale of priorities and change to a system that they do not believe in but accept because they are required to do so by the education authorities.
Extraordinary teaching methods and structure have been imposed on the teaching profession by the very Labour-controlled local education authorities that have been guided by the usual fashionable whims of the

left-wing establishment. We all know that, in the past, such authorities latched on to comprehensive education out of a particularly illiterate understanding of the meaning or use of the word comprehensive in that context. For educationists, comprehensive education was meant to provide the widest possible range of education in one establishment. We all accept that there are terrible problems in trying to do that. The Labour party latched on to the idea that it would be socially comprehensive to put all children into the same schools, as that was good for its ideology.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Except for their own children.

Mr. Arnold: Yes. It is not good enough for their children, but it is good enough for their constituents' children. The result has been that too many schools have been unable to cope with the burden, imposed on them, of providing a wonderful education across the full range of subjects for a full range of children, regardless of their aptitude. I am glad to see that the Labour party is at last waking up to the fact that that is not the way to deliver education to young people.
Last night, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made a speech. He was wearing sackcloth and ashes for the way in which the Labour party has, for many years, tried to impose its education policies through local authorities. It is interesting to note that he said:
Our commitment to comprehensive education cannot be a commitment to continued mediocrity, to sameness or to tolerance of failure.
Who has imposed those very attributes? Labour-controlled education authorities and the Labour approach to education and teaching.
The Labour party has come out with another document, called "Excellence for Everyone". Does not that sound marvellous?

Mr. Greg Pope: What does that have to do with the report?

Mr. Arnold: The report is essential to education precisely because of the failures brought about by Labour party education policy, pushed through local education authorities. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the connection, he needs to go back to school.
Let us talk about people who are in school. What has been the Secondary Heads Association's response to the latest Labour party education policy report? Its response states:
The document is an uncomfortable mixture of the naive and messianic and the commendable theme of a crusade loses its impact in a welter of mini-crusades and objectives, many of which, though presented as such, are far from new".
So much for the Labour party in relation to that matter.
Today, we are debating the inspection of our schools, which is highlighting the problems and the way ahead. I find it very encouraging that the Government have introduced the national curriculum, because—despite the vicissitudes caused by loads of paper and problems that the enthusiasm of the education establishment has created—it has laid down what our youngsters should achieve at different ages. It has been laid down in the face


of carping, negative criticism from the Labour party all the way down the line. We have now started testing, which is highlighting the performance of pupils and schools. That policy also was introduced in the face of the votes and opposition of the Labour party.
We are receiving the results of those policies, and it is now up to parents and teachers in the schools that educate their children to improve standards. The inspectorate is vital in that process because its reports on schools give parents, teachers and, of course, governors the detail of the qualities and successes of a school—and the aspects that require considerable improvement.
This debate is very encouraging. We are talking about the quality of education, opportunities for youngsters and choice for parents, which are the very heart of Conservative education policy. The debate is now on our field and on our terms. I see the Labour party crawling on to our field to discuss education. May it learn—but we will remain in government to push through the reforms.

Ms Estelle Morris: First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing this debate. It is an excellent idea to have a debate on the report of the chief inspector of schools. It is, to some extent, worth considering making such a debate an annual event because there are too few occasions on which we can consider education in its broadest sense. In future years, it may be a debate that can take place in the Government's time so that we do not have to trust to an hon. Member's good luck in securing a place in the ballot.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury on the way in which he presented his arguments. They were measured, gave due recognition to our school system's achievements and recognised some of the areas in which improvement is needed. Unlike some of his colleagues, he introduced the debate in a manner which generally opened the discussion rather than trying to score political points.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: Not at the moment; I have just started. I shall be happy to give way when I have made some progress.
Other Conservative Members did not follow the good example set by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Lady said that this is an extremely important debate, and she referred to the fact that four Conservative Back Benchers spoke in the debate. If education is so important to the Labour party, can she explain why not one Labour Back Bencher has attended this debate, let alone spoken in it?

Ms Morris: We will hear no lectures from Conservative Members on the importance of education. I am responsible for what I do in the House. I am here and I am about to answer this debate. I am not responsible for other hon. Members, on either side the House, or for how they choose to spend their parliamentary time.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made some very interesting points about the school inspection process, and I found myself agreeing with a great many of them. I should like to pick out one or two things that he said. He gave a depiction of the situation in his constituency, in which staff in schools experience almost a neurosis as the inspection starts. That is certainly one of the problems with the inspection being a one-off look—a snapshot view—of how a school is doing at a particular time. I have been to schools where the staff say that they hold up projects or develop them only to a certain extent so that they are at their best during the week of inspection. It cannot be helpful if schools and the education service regard the inspection process with that attitude.
One way round that problem would be to reach a situation in which the one-off inspection by a team of outside inspectors is just one item in the on-going process of school inspection and self-evaluation. I think that we can get rid of that neurosis if schools expect that advisers will occasionally come in—to be friends, to give support or to give criticism—and that someone from outside the local authority will give an outsider's view to check standards. Like the hon. Member for Waveney, I hope that that approach to school inspection is something that can evolve, and that we can get rid of many schools' defensive posture.
Before moving on to the report, I should like to make two or three further points about the inspection process. Inevitably, we must deal with the information as it is presented in the chief inspector's report, but the raw data on assessment tests do not give the whole picture. One of the dilemmas is that we are dealing with a set of results based on student achievement at seven and another set of results for students at 11. Under the present system, no one appears to know what is happening in between. We must move to a system of setting year-on-year targets for every child in every school. We must measure at the end of the year whether children have reached the standard that they could reasonably have been expected to reach and whether the school has helped the children to reach those standards. The one-off look and the one-off collection of raw data at seven, 11,13 and 16 do not give sufficiently high-quality information—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: Not again. It was bad enough last time.
We are not getting the right information to enable us to make reasonable judgments about the progress of individuals or the progress of schools.
It is a matter of concern that primary schools will not be inspected every four years. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, it was revealed that £12.8 million is being taken out of the Ofsted budget for 1995–96. That will mean only that fewer schools are inspected than should be. If inspection is as important as people have said today, it is important that Ofsted is given the resources it needs to carry out the inspections that it and the Government feel appropriate.
I recognise the achievement of many pupils in the school system. The inspector says that the successes this year are many and real. He also says that there are twice as many really excellent teachers as there are poor teachers; that is the case. I congratulate not only the schools mentioned in the introduction to the report,


but the schools that have also reached high standards, but which have not been inspected this year. They sometimes feel aggrieved because they have been left out of the list.
I join the hon. Member for Aylesbury in putting on record my congratulations to Brookside special school in Derbyshire and Crook primary school in County Durham. They were considered to be failing schools and faced quite inexcusable press publicity about their situation. The determination, skill and energy that the schools have put in to turn round the position is a tribute to the teachers, governors, parents, pupils and communities that they serve.
Many young people are making real progress, not only in academic terms, but in community activities, sport and cultural activities. Many of the schools listed at the beginning of the report are mentioned not necessarily for academic achievement, but for achievement in the wider area of things that we expect schools to give our children.
The big problem that comes through in the report is one that has always plagued the British education system. The report talks about unacceptably wide variations in school performance. For all the achievement and for all the youngsters who go forward with confidence, qualifications and the surety that they have something to contribute to society—doors are opening for them and opportunities beckon—there are too many students who are not getting that chance and who are not able to reach their expected level of attainment.
Some 30 per cent. of A-level students fail to complete their course; that is not a statistic mentioned in the chief inspector's report. Some 5 per cent.—one in 20—of our youngsters leave school with no GCSEs, although they are often bright children who could achieve more. There was a decline in English and mathematics results at GCSE last year. One fifth of pupils are below expected standards at the age of seven, rising to one half of pupils being below expected levels in English and mathematics at the age of 11. If that continues, we shall not reach the national targets that we as a nation have set ourselves and we shall not raise the standards of all our children.
We have a decision to make. Either we can choose to be what we have always been as a nation—giving opportunity and resources to a few and trusting the future of our country to the skills of a few—or we can set about raising standards for everybody and trying to achieve a high-skill, high-wage economy in which the future of the nation rests not in a few, but in the strengths and skills of all. We have never had an education system that has tried to do that. Historically, we gave opportunities only to the rich and to males. More recently, we gave opportunities to children who passed the 11-plus. In the past 17 years, we have seen the havoc wreaked by differential funding and by the failure to address the problems of schools that under-achieve. That is the challenge for this country and that is the challenge for all the partners in education. We must not rest on the achievements of a few. The Prime Minister was right when he said that we have always done well by 15 per cent. of our young people. The challenge is to do better by the 85 per cent. of people who have always been failed.
I now turn to a few specific areas of concern that have been raised in the report. There are many, but there is neither time nor opportunity for me to go through them all. It is of concern that children in inner-city schools are under-achieving. I taught for 18 years in an inner-city

school before I came to the House, so I am always conscious that there is just as much under-achievement in the middle-class suburbs and in the comfortable areas, and by the children of the more affluent which is masked because those children get reasonably good results.
We must have a means of measuring progress so that we can identify both achievement and under-achievement. Achievement is about making progress from where people start; it is not necessarily about how many children gain five A to C grades at 16. The chief inspector says that in areas of urban disadvantage, there is more chance of children achieving less, more chance of under-achieving and more chance of the community and teachers having lower expectations of young people. That is true. If there is one kernel that teachers have to take from the report, it is that we must have an end to low expectations. Teachers and many others understand why some children find it difficult to succeed. The task must be to address the barriers to success rather than accepting them as causes of under-achievement.
One sentence in the report is crucial. The inspector says:
Some schools allow their necessary and understandable preoccupation with pastoral care to distract attention from teaching focused on achievement.
That is right. Teachers are trained to teach and that is what they should be doing. Every minute that is not spent teaching a child, no matter how rich or how poor, no matter how able or how much in need of special support, is a minute taken away from raising standards.
However, what do teachers do when children turn up at school who suffer from the most horrific home situations, such as overcrowded housing, abuse, ill-health caused by poverty, a lack of confidence or a lack of any one showing an interest in them? I am not pretending for a minute that that happens in the majority of areas. However, those are the children who are coming through the gates of some of our schools. Many teachers feel that they must address those issues before they can address the teaching. I ask the Minister to recognise that standards in education will be raised only if we address the wider areas of Government policy so that children can come to school in the morning ready to learn, which will enable teachers to be ready to teach.
I now look forward. The myth about which we have heard today that, somehow, things were better in the old days when there was selection makes me wonder where some hon. Members were 20 or 30 years ago. The expansion in higher education, which is welcome, has happened on the back of the comprehensive system. The children who have gone through that system and who have not been labelled failures at 11 are now going into higher education. My parents' generation and Conservative Members' parents and grandparents' generation were just as able as hon. Members who have had a university education, were just as bright and could have made just as much contribution, but they were in a system that labelled them failures at 11 and they were never given a chance. I do not know what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) means by social engineering. Comprehensive education gives opportunity to the many and prevents doors from being closed.
It is clear what the way forward must be. It must involve top-quality nursery provision, properly resourced schools, raising the morale of the teaching profession,


restoring schemes such as reading recovery schemes and reducing class sizes. It is, indeed, the biggest task that faces our nation. The word "partnership" was used earlier. What a shame it is that we have not had that for the past 17 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I will not be able to cover all of the matters raised by my hon. Friends in the 11 minutes available to me, but I am grateful to all of those who have taken part. The debate was kicked off by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who gave his customary excellent speech on the subject. He was nobly, trenchantly and intelligently supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and there were incisive interjections from my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Southport (Mr. Banks). It was a tremendous achievement.
I shall take up two points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). First, I shall certainly consider her suggestion that we provide a debate in Government time on the chief inspector's report, if only—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said—to ensure the attendance of Opposition Back Benchers. Secondly, she implied that the Government have reduced Ofsted's budget. She knows—although the House may not fully be aware of it—that because of good budgeting, Ofsted has advised us that it will not be able to spend its full budget this year. The Government were advised in time, and we have made the appropriate adjustments and increased the budgets appropriately for the ensuing years.
I shall refer to the other main points of the debate as time allows. First, I wish to pay tribute to the work done by Ofsted in raising education standards. The chief inspector's annual report is one of the key education documents produced during the year. It provides a thorough review of the state of the nation's schools, and shows both success and failure in the classroom. It is based on evidence from actual inspection reports, and therefore has an authority that is difficult to challenge.
A number of key points in the report have been raised this morning. In particular, the report provides evidence that all types of school can achieve excellence. More than 200 successful schools were picked out for special commendation, some of which—as has been made clear—are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends. The schools range from inner-city primaries to shire county secondary schools. The report records that the majority of schools have satisfactory or better standards of pupil achievement and teaching, and adds that there is generally good behaviour in all but a few schools and a growing confidence among teachers about meeting national curriculum requirements. These are the positive points, and the teachers in the schools concerned deserve our warmest congratulations.
The report does not seek to disguise the fact that there are still areas that require major improvement. These include the need to raise standards of pupil achievement in half of our primary schools and two fifths of our

secondary schools, and the need to improve standards of teaching—one lesson in five remains unsatisfactory. The report has given clear messages about what needs to be done, and the Government have already put a wide range of measures into effect to secure improvement. I shall spend a few moments on those.
The inspection system introduced by the Government means that schools are now inspected on a regular basis. Some 6,000 schools have already been inspected. All have had reports published and all have had to draw up action plans which have addressed any areas of weakness identified in the inspection report. That is crucial information in helping schools to improve, and is the sort of independent expert analysis that schools did not routinely receive in the past.
The report observes that there are already clear indications that the process of inspection and action planning is helping schools to improve their teaching methods. We know that inspecting all schools is a massive undertaking, but it is one that we are determined to achieve. Ofsted has taken decisive action through the recruitment of a large group of additional inspectors to ensure that the four-year inspection target is met.
For our part, the Government have introduced the new post-inspection grant for education support and training to help schools with their action plans after inspection. The grant enables LEAs to target help on schools with serious weaknesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney helpfully raised the subject of the nature of future inspections. We are considering carefully how we should proceed once the current initial cycle of inspections has been completed. More than half of all secondary schools have already been inspected and all schools will have been inspected by July 1998. Now is a good time to take stock and to consider what our permanent inspection arrangements should be.
There is already a fair degree of consensus that any new arrangements should ensure that all schools are regularly inspected, but perhaps with more targeting towards schools with serious weaknesses. The Secretary of State and the chief inspector are giving thought to the matter, and we hope to announce further details on our thinking by Easter.
The key to high achievement is good teaching, and the report makes it clear that while there are many excellent teachers, there are still a small minority whose performance is consistently weak. This problem must be tackled. We in the Government can help, but ultimately only the school itself can secure a lasting improvement. Some hon. Members already know that, from April, Ofsted inspectors will be working to a new and more sharply focused inspection framework that is the product of extensive consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, from the same date, the inspectors will be reporting to the head when they find examples of excellent or very poor teaching. That will not diminish the role of the head and senior staff, but should be a valuable management tool. It will also provide useful feedback to the teacher concerned.
On the wider front, the Teacher Training Agency is also actively involved and is working to improve the quality of initial teacher training by drawing on inspection reports from Ofsted that are also now being published. It has also undertaken work to target in-service training priorities—for example, subject knowledge at key stage 2; improving behaviour; and discipline and school leadership.
In recognition of the very important role of head teachers—this is highlighted by the report—the TTA is working to establish a new national professional qualification for aspiring head teachers that will set a rigorous national standard for headships. The qualification will be in addition to the head teachers' Headlamp training scheme that is already well under way.
The chief inspector's report shows that there is a need to tackle mediocre and poor standards of literacy in many schools. It recommends that schools should review the quality and consistency of teaching to set and achieve higher targets. Similarly, there is much that could be done to improve the progress and attainment of pupils in terms of number work. It is because we share the chief inspector's wish to see such an improvement that we have announced the establishment of up to 20 literacy and numeracy centres, aimed particularly at improving teaching in primary schools. There are also new rules for training primary teachers, with at least 50 hours to be spent on training in the teaching of reading and 50 hours on arithmetic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made several comments, and in particular highlighted what he saw as the difficulty of dismissing bad teachers. No one denies that in schools, as elsewhere, there can be difficulties in dismissing inadequate staff. I must stress that teachers have the same rights under employment protection law as any other employee but, because of our legislation on the local management of schools, any well-run school now has powers to take the necessary action either to improve performance where a teacher has been identified as being currently deficient, or, if necessary, to dismiss.
I await clarification from the Opposition of their recent comments about hastening the process. It seems at first sight, however, that their proposals will lead either to the weakening of the employment position of teachers—which seems unlikely—or to the Opposition in some way

taking back the powers that we have given to school governors. I would personally deplore either of those options.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury also referred to primary and secondary funding but, with precisely two minutes remaining to me, he will not expect me to go into that subject at great length. He will know that powers do lie with LEAs to vary their local management of schools schemes, and to ensure that greater assistance is given by those schemes to primary schools relative to secondary schools on the per-pupil funding basis.
In conclusion, I have outlined some of the steps that the Government have taken to improve school performance. Many of our other measures—such as the national curriculum, assessment and testing, local management and the publication of performance tables—are already well in place. Indeed, we have recently announced our plan to publish next spring school performance tables showing the 1996 national curriculum assessment results for 11-year-olds.
We in government can do only so much. We cannot ultimately impose improvement on a school; that must come from within it. We know that schools can improve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for Yardley said, two former failing schools—Brookside special school and Crook primary school—have improved so significantly that the chief inspector singled them out for specific commendation. Six schools, including those two, have come off special measures because the inspectorate recognises that they are delivering good-quality education. They and other schools throughout the country show what can be done with good teaching, effective leadership and strong support. Those qualities, more than Government exhortation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

Bridgewater Four

11 am

Mr. Dennis Turner: I am glad to initiate this debate, which will be the first time that this distressing case has been fully discussed in the House.
The tragic and outrageous murder of newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater, whose parents and family deserve our sympathy, has been shrouded in controversy since November 1979 when four men were convicted for the killing. Vincent Hickey and James Robinson went down for life for the murder and Michael Hickey was also convicted of murder and detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. Pat Molloy got 12 years for manslaughter.
Six weeks after the convictions, a man called Hubert Spencer shot his friend Hubert Wilks through the head in the farm next door to the one where the murder was committed. It emerged at once that Spencer had been an early police suspect for the Bridgewater murder, that he knew Yew Tree farm—where the murder had been committed—had coveted antiques there such as those that were stolen during the robbery and had access to shotguns. It also emerged that a blue Vauxhall Viva, driven by a man in uniform, was seen going into the farm an hour and a half before the murder. Intensive police inquiries throughout the midlands could establish only one owner of a blue Vauxhall Viva who wore a uniform—Hubert Spencer.
The convicted men consistently pleaded their innocence and a huge array of evidence has been uncovered to challenge the slender case that was made against them at their trial. Replying recently to questions in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who I am pleased to see in his seat, referred twice to the numerous police inquiries into the case since 1981. He said that the latest batches of new evidence
have been thoroughly examined—extremely thoroughly examined". —[Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1126.]
He asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) whether he recognised the thoroughness of the police investigations that had been carried out.
Hon. Members who are worried about the case recognise the thoroughness of the police investigations and the inordinate length of time that they have taken but, as we have discovered recently, thoroughness is not always the same as fairness. There is a great deal to suggest that the recent investigation into the case by Merseyside police, though intensely thorough, has not been fair to the convicted men and their families.
Most of the recent new evidence submitted to the Home Office by the men's lawyers has dealt with the confessions of Pat Molloy, which are the kernel of the case. He was arrested on 8 December 1978. He was held at Wombourne police station and refused access to friends, family and lawyers. On 10 December, he signed a confession that he was upstairs at Yew Tree farm when the murder was committed. The confession named the other three men as the boy's killers.
Molloy was refused access to a lawyer for another eight days, until 18 December. The moment that he saw a lawyer on that day, and ever since, he insisted that he had

never been at the farm, that his confession was wholly false and that he had signed it out of fear of the police and for revenge against the Hickeys, who, he was led to believe, had implicated him in the crime. At his trial, however, acting on legal advice, he did not give evidence and did not deny his confession. Though he pleaded not guilty and denied that he was at the farm, his lawyers asked the jury to conclude that if it thought that he had been at the farm, he was guilty not of murder but only of being an accomplice.
That tortuous defence, and Molloy's failure to give evidence, was the turning point in the trial. He was convicted of manslaughter and the other three of murder. Almost immediately after his conviction, he submitted an appeal. He regretted his silence at the trial and insisted again that he had never been at the farm. He said that his confession had been beaten out of him by police officers, whom he identified. He set out the details of his beatings in a series of memoranda to the Court of Appeal and in conversations and letters to his sister, to his son, to Jimmy Robinson's then girlfriend Carol Bradbury and to Ann Whelan, the mother of Michael Hickey, who had visited him. In July 1981, before he could get to the Court of Appeal, he died of a heart attack in Gartree prison.
The new evidence submitted by Molloy's family lawyers in 1993 provides powerful—some would say overwhelming—evidence in support of Molloy's story. For instance, the lawyers had proved 14 separate visits to his cell at Wombourne by police officers connected with the inquiry. The records show no recorded interviews during any of those visits.
The Home Office asked Merseyside to interview the police officers concerned. Those officers do not dispute—they cannot really since it is on record—that they went to Molloy's cell on all the occasions alleged. They do not dispute that there were no recorded interviews. By way of explanation, they claim that they were inquiring after his welfare, checking that he was properly fed and so on. That is all accepted by the police investigators. Is it credible that the police at Wombourne should have shown such assiduous concern for a man who had just signed a confession to one of the worst murders ever known in the area?
A more credible explanation for the 14 missing interviews may be that the officers were searching desperately but unsuccessfully for a single shred of evidence to corroborate Molloy's confession. On 14 December, in desperation, officers from another force took Molloy to Yew Tree farm. It was plain to them that he did not recognise the place where only three months earlier he had allegedly taken part in the killing of the young boy.
The plain fact is that over 17 years not a single piece of evidence has been found to corroborate Molloy's confession. The likelihood that the 14 mystery visits were inspired by an anxious determination to authenticate what the officers rightly feared might be an entirely false confession is not even considered by the investigation's police officers, who simply took the word of the Wombourne police on trust.
Here is another example. The police investigation attempted to uncover a number of occasions on which Molloy is said to have confessed to police and prison officers after the trial. Each of those alleged confessions is highly dubious. One, provided by a prison officer at


Winson Green, is flatly contradicted by prison records, but the Merseyside police blamed the records rather than the officer. Moreover, the list of alleged confessions has been submitted as hard evidence without the other side of the story ever being considered. Molloy's son Nick, Ann Whelan, and Molloy's sister Frances—all of whom can testify to Molloy's strenuous denials of his confession right up to the day before he died—were never interviewed by the Merseyside police. One side of the story is set out at great length; the other is not even investigated.
There are many other examples. When overwhelming linguistic evidence proved that Molloy's confession interviews could not have been taken down verbatim, as the trial was told, the police investigators promptly switched the goal posts and claimed that the confession had been taken down in response to "trigger notes".
A man called Mike Chamberlain stated on television in the summer of 1993 that his friend the late Detective Constable Perkins—the police officer who had taken Molloy's confession—told him clearly that he intended to
extract a confession out of Molloy".
Chamberlain is dismissed by the Merseyside investigation on the basis of a statement that he made a year earlier that he did not want to speak to the police.
At the appeal hearing, much was made of the fact that Spencer had not had access to a gun at the time of the murder; yet, when the police investigators discovered that he had been sold a shotgun in the summer before the murder, they dismissed it as irrelevant. There is powerful evidence that yet more misleading statements were made by the only substantial witness against Jimmy Robinson—Mervyn Ritter, a man already exposed in the courts as a pathological liar. That, too, seems to have been dismissed too easily by the investigation.
It is simply not good enough for the Home Secretary to take it on himself to dismiss all that new evidence solely on the basis of a private police inquiry. That is at the heart of the argument for reopening the case in public. The Home Secretary cannot and should not usurp the role of the courts by deciding himself about controversial evidence that has been tested only by police officers in secret, not by discovery of documents and cross-examination in open court. If, as many believe, a terrible injustice has been done to those men, each year that passes compounds that injustice. Each year brings new evidence, all of it exonerating the men and none of it implicating them.
In 1993, Tim O'Malley, who had been foreman of the jury at the 1979 trial, came forward. He had, he said, been convinced of the men's guilt at the trial, but was now even more convinced of their innocence. What plainer proof can there be that a verdict is unsafe than such a statement from the jury foreman, made at some risk to himself? Surely the honourable and open thing to do is to send the case back to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I shall speak only briefly about the case that was set out so clearly, and in so much detail, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
In one way or another, I have been involved with the case for the past 14 years—initially because Ann Whelan, Michael Hickey's mother, was a constituent of mine and

visited my advice bureau. I pay tribute to the dogged determination with which she has argued her son's case for the past 15 years, but I confess that, when she first spoke to me, I was sceptical about her son's innocence. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will confirm that it has never been my way to assume automatically that cases that he regards as miscarriages of justice are miscarriages of justice. He would say that I had come late to the defence of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford bombers, as they were once wrongly described.
My natural instinct when I first met Mrs. Whelan was to assume that mothers are inclined to believe that sons are innocent. At the time, her son was on the roof of the prison in which he was incarcerated, and I believed then that there was more emotion than evidence to her case. Over the years, however, I have become utterly convinced that the case that she made then was right. Week after week, month after month, additional evidence has been supplied to support that case.
Looking back, I now realise that the case began with the basic ingredient for a miscarriage of justice. Locally, there was a sense of absolute outrage—which was proper and understandable—that a newspaper boy doing his rounds in the morning, wholly unconcerned with what was going on, should stumble on robbers and be shot dead. In my experience, such outrage—fuelled by the newspapers, which say that someone must be convicted and that the case must be speedily resolved—puts pressure on police, which in itself is likely to produce the wrong result. I have no doubt that it was that sense of outrage that began the whole process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East pointed out, the entire case rests on Molloy's evidence. I do not want to repeat my hon. Friend's account of how that evidence was obtained, but there is little doubt that Molloy believed—I make no allegation that he was told—that, if he incriminated the men who were eventually convicted of the murder, he would escape on a lesser charge. That is speculation; but it is a fact that, had the events occurred 10 years later, Molloy's evidence would have been discounted, because it was wholly inconsistent with the rules laid down by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Molloy was kept for 10 days without proper assistance from a lawyer, and, for much of that time, without any support from his family. The records of his evidence are inadequate by any standards. The pattern continues. After the conviction, when it was known that appeals were likely and that Molloy had recanted—he had announced that he had been wrong to incriminate the other three men—14 visits were made to his cell. They were not recorded in diaries as they should have been, and the conversations that took place in the cell were also not recorded, as would now be required for evidence to be acceptable to the courts. That pattern of what would now be regarded as malpractice characterised the entire process, not simply of obtaining the conviction, but of ensuring that public outrage at the conviction, and the formal appeal, should not have the result that I consider justice to have required.
Two weeks ago, at Question Time, I referred to the strange incident of the bicycle. Although it is a small incident in the overall saga, it is indicative of the sort of procedures that were used. I knew about the bicycle because, during one of her visits to my constituency


surgery, Mrs. Whelan had told me that she had heard that there were fingerprints on it, about which we were not being told the full story. The bicycle was exhibited in court, but not much was said about it, although it was standing there in front of the jury. The bicycle was then left in the jury room. The jury, no doubt, felt emotionally involved because it was the bicycle of the innocent paper boy who had pedalled off in the morning and who had met his death when he was shot by robbers at the farm. The jury felt emotionally disturbed by the presence of the boy's bicycle as they considered their verdict.
We now know that there were fingerprints on the bicycle, but we do not know whose they were. We know that the fingerprints were not those of Michael Hickey or the men who were eventually convicted of the murder, but they were never identified. Over 10 years ago, on the suggestion of Mrs. Whelan, I asked the then Home Secretary about the fingerprints and he gave me an answer that I can describe only as evasive. He said that he knew nothing of them and referred me to the local police. The local police gave me an answer that was equally uninformative. It was not until months afterwards that we discovered that another person had been present at the crime scene—the fingerprints proved it, but that evidence was not provided during the trial.
When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), about this the other day, he said that the defence counsel had known this before the appeal. The defence counsel certainly did not know it at the time of the trial. Indeed, the principal counsel, now a High Court judge, has said publicly that had he known it at the time of the trial, he would have asked for the scene of crime officer to be called in evidence and he would have cross-examined him about the possibility of other persons being there. That is just one example, but I could give many more—and I am sure that my hon. Friends will give many more.
I conclude by making one simple point. Michael Hickey had many misfortunes: the misfortune that he was implicated in a crime about which there were proper feelings of outrage; the misfortune that the police were determined to find someone to convict; the misfortune that a man—Molloy—believed it was to his advantage to incriminate others to receive a lighter sentence; the misfortune that the evidence of that man, which was recanted, was not available to the appeal because he died of a heart attack; and the misfortune that he appealed two or three years too early.
I do not mean that Michael Hickey's mother and those who supported him were over-enthusiastic; I mean that he went to appeal at a time when the Court of Appeal was taking the hardest possible line on these matters. I believe that had the appeal taken place in the new circumstances—when a different attitude and a different Lord Chief Justice prevail—a different result would have been obtained. For those reasons and because of the dubiety that covers so much of the evidence, I am sure that the Home Secretary should resubmit the case to the court. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that that course has not entirely been ruled out.
I do not always understand the arcane language of the law, but as I understand the Home Secretary's response, he has said that he has not quite made up his mind not to

do it; he has nearly made up his mind not to do it, but there is still a chink of hope that he might do it. I hope that that chink of hope can be extended. I am absolutely certain that, sooner or later, as has been the case in other examples of the miscarriage of justice, Michael Hickey will come out of prison. It will be righted sooner or later. It will be a tragedy if he is allowed to stay in prison unjustly for any longer than is necessary. There must be an immediate submission to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is pleasing to see that a number of hon. Members have a particular interest in the case. I do not wish to go into the minutiae of it. I agree with a number of the points that have been made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). One of the concerns that I have was expressed in an article in The Guardian in June 1993. I refer to the remarks attributed to Mr. Tim O'Malley, who was the foreman of the jury at Stafford Crown court.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is in this place this morning.

Mr. William Cash: I welcome this debate and I pay tribute to the extremely careful analysis that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). I believe that this matter should be reviewed and referred to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Banks: The murder of Carl Bridgewater has unleashed a multitude of theories, conspiracies, scapegoats and excuses over the last 17 or so years—most of which have been eagerly recounted by hon. Members. Before I deal with the unsatisfactory story of the incarceration of the four convicted, let me make it clear that the first thought of many of us—particularly hon. Members on Government Benches—is for the victim and his family. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), said:
I hope that all hon. Members will also bear in mind the appalling time that the family of young Carl Bridgewater have had. They have suffered terribly, and the continuing publicity and time involved in considering representations are causing them even more suffering."—[Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1132.]
If Carl had been spared his ordeal at Yew Tree farm in 1978, he would be just a few years younger than I am now. Nothing will ever compensate his family for his loss. What will always make me and others feel a little more whole, a bit more secure, is the knowledge that the real murderers are behind bars and that they are being punished as severely as society will allow. What must be causing untold distress to Carl's family is not so much the seeming uncertainty that surrounds the four convictions, but the continuing publicity that is accorded to the death of their boy. Paul Foot, who has been eulogised many times, said in his book "Murder at the Farm":
Each time the case got any publicity, they said, the suffering of that awful September came back to haunt them. Whoever did the murder was to them of small significance compared to the fact that their son was gone.
Between 1981 and 1987, there were four secret police inquiries into new evidence, which have cast doubt on those convictions. In 1987, the then Home Secretary,


my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), referred the case to the Court of Appeal. The appeal lasted nine weeks through 1988 and 1989 and was dismissed. In February 1993, the then Home Secretary, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, turned down leave for appeal by the three men on the ground that the new evidence presented to him did not cast doubt on the convictions. New evidence has been presented to the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and as the Home Office press release of 7 December 1995 put it:
The Home Secretary has not decided whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, although at present he is minded not to do so.
As someone who takes a slightly different line on this matter from Labour Members, I, too, am appalled at the length of time it is taking for the case to be fully closed. It seems to me that it will never go away.
The point I want to make about the convictions must be prefaced by my belief that, of course, if the men's convictions are found to be unsafe, they should be freed. No one, no matter how unsavoury, should be locked away for any longer than they deserve. I say "longer than they deserve" because it is a fact that we are not yet dealing with victims when we talk about Patrick Molloy, Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey or Jimmy Robinson. I am sure that their families have been badly affected by their long incarceration, especially Molloy's family because he died while in prison. However, the only victims in this case, as I understand it, are Carl Bridgewater and his family.
Many aspects of the case are unsatisfactory. In my view, the rooftop protests of Michael Hickey and Jimmy Robinson suggest that there is a strong grievance inside these men. The excruciating investigation into this case carried out by Paul Foot, Ann Whelan, Michael Hickey's mother, and others has cast a suspicion that the Home Secretary and the courts could throw out this case 100 times and the defence would still come back for more.

Ms Jean Corston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was never a shred of forensic evidence linking Michael Hickey or any of the others to the crime? Indeed, the only evidence against Michael Hickey was another prisoner saying that while Mr. Hickey was in the shower, he had confessed to the crime. The prisoner's confession was later retracted. The Court of Appeal decided not to take into account the evidence of the prisoner who had put forward the fabricated confession, which means that there has never been any evidence to link Michael Hickey with the crime.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady will know that Mr. O'Malley's comments in the report from The Guardian to which I referred, were followed by those of Dr. Eric Shepherd, a forensic psychologist commissioned as part of the Government inquiry into the convictions. The report said that he
concluded that Mr. Molloy's crucial confession was unreliable.
Yet, when people are reminded that both Molloy and Vincent Hickey originally confessed—Hickey in an attempt to "save his own skin", to use Foot's words, from the Chapel farm robbery charge and Molloy because he received a better deal than the others—that Molloy was a convicted robber and that Hickey and Robinson were likewise hoodlums, it is palpably nonsense to describe

them as anything other than shady and callous criminals who may well have received a lot more than their come-uppance.
I read through some of the press cuttings of the case. I was perplexed to see the unjust captivity of John McCarthy compared with the ordeal of the three men in prison by Jill Morrell. If those men are set free by the courts, I shall see the validity of the comparison a little more clearly.
In another press cutting—somehow speaking during his rooftop protest in 1993—Jimmy Robinson spoke to John Mullin of The Guardian. Describing his situation on the roof of Gartree prison with his fellow protester—another convicted murderer—he said:
The cold is the worst. Then boredom. We read magazines and old newspapers they send us up. We keep each other company. We tell each other about our lives. We tell each other jokes. We're both good liars, you know.
He may well be; the other two may well be too.
My arbitrary quotation of Robinson is symptomatic of the case in its entirety. There have been so many statements, retractions, accusations and so forth that the case goes on like some horrible soap opera, with the original crime almost hidden by the quagmire of investigation into the so-called Bridgewater Four. It would be more sensitive to call them the Yew Tree Four, but that is just my mind set.
My speech is not necessarily intended to be a contribution to the continuing investigation, but I hope that it reminds people of the true victims in the case. Those who genuinely want a possible miscarriage of justice righted are to be admired. While failings in a criminal justice system must be corrected, I am not so sure about my feelings towards those who possibly see the case as an opportunity to attack the system as a whole—although I am not suggesting that right hon. and hon. Members have done so today—or towards those who forget the feelings of the loved ones, who do not want to see the circumstances surrounding their son Carl's death staring at them in every newspaper from now until who knows when.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I endorse what the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said about the family of Carl Bridgewater. All of us who have been involved in cases of miscarriage of justice understand the terrible effect that the case dragging on unresolved year after year must have on the families of the victims. It is as much in their interests as in the interests of the men who, I believe, have been wrongly convicted that we bring the situation to an end.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on his good fortune in obtaining this debate and on the clear way in which he set out the issues. I am glad that it is clear that the case, like the other celebrated miscarriages of justice, is beginning to attract support from both sides of the House. I have never felt that concern about miscarriages of justice should be confined to one side. I have always dealt with the issues and looked at them from the point of view of justice rather than from any party political perspective, and I will continue to do so. In all the great alleged miscarriages of justice, I have taken heart from


and worked happily with Conservative Members who have come to the same conclusions as I have. I look forward to doing so in this case.
This is the greatest unresolved miscarriage of justice. I am genuinely puzzled that Ministers so stubbornly refuse to face up to what has obviously gone wrong. I do not know of any other case in which the foreman of the original jury has publicly stated that he does not believe that the men would have been convicted if the jury had known then what we know today. That statement is wholly unprecedented. Since one of the judgments that the Court of Appeal has to make when deciding whether to quash a conviction is to decide what the effect of new evidence would be on the jury, the evidence of the foreman of the original jury is something to which great weight ought to be given.
When the Guildford and Birmingham cases collapsed, we were assured that lessons had been learnt and that there would be no repetition of the scandals of the late 1980s and early 1990s. For a while, that seemed to be the case. Yet here we are, going round the same old track again, with endless police investigations that lead nowhere and cost enormous amounts of public money and crucial information that should have been disclosed at the trial having to be prised out of Ministers and officials line by line.
Five years after the royal commission on criminal justice was set up, there is still no sign—or not much sign—of the establishment of the independent review authority for which we legislated last year. If ever there were a case that ought to be dealt with swiftly by the review authority, the Bridgewater case is it. The post of chairman was advertised last September and interviews took place last December, but a chairman has not yet been appointed. I do not believe that the authority is likely to be set up until at least the back end of this year, and I cannot understand the long delay.
Mention has been made of the confession of Patrick Molloy, which is central to the case—it hinges on his confession, which was extracted in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that they were not all that extraordinary, compared with the way in which the West Midlands police went about their business at the time. Certainly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, no court today would uphold a conviction based on a confession obtained in those extraordinary circumstances.
I notice that the confession was taken by Detective Constable Perkins of the West Midlands serious crime squad, who is one of the most complained about officers in one of the most complained about forces in the country. I notice, too, another familiar name—that of Detective Sergeant Hornby, who was peripherally involved with the case. He is probably the most complained about officer in the most complained about force in the country. I have the advantage of having seen his disciplinary record, which was disclosed at the Birmingham pub bombings trial, in which he played a part.
I am looking forward with great interest to the day when the discipline record of DC Perkins will have to be disclosed, to find out what other allegations of a similar nature have been made about that man, as I know that

there are quite a lot. While we are on the subject, I wonder where that discipline file has got to. I should have thought that it was relevant, considering his central role in the case. If his credibility is so relevant, I should have thought that that file ought by now to have been disclosed and I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has for doing so.
It is strongly my view that no court today would allow a confession obtained in such circumstances to stand. I am puzzled as to why Ministers are still clinging to the wreckage.
On fingerprints, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred, the fact that two unidentified fingerprints were found on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater has emerged recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said. I raised that matter with the Minister on 15 February, and I think that he gave me a misleading answer. He said that the existence of the fingerprints had been disclosed in 1988—that is only nine years after they were known to the prosecution—whereas the truth is that all the defence was told in 1988 was that two unidentified fingerprints had been found at the farm; not quite the same thing.
It was not revealed until 1994 that the prints had been on the bike, which was picked up by one of those responsible for this terrible deed and thrown into a pigsty. No one should be under any doubt about the significance of those fingerprints, because the police were not. They took the matter seriously at that time and records show that they contacted 34 police forces in an attempt to discover who had left the fingerprints. The police lost interest in the fingerprints only when they had charged the four men, against whom there was no forensic evidence and of whose fingerprints there was no sign at the farm.
I invite the Minister to correct the false impression that he gave me on 15 February and to confirm that the existence of fingerprints on the bike were not disclosed until 1994, 16 years after they were known to the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Igor Judge. So much, incidentally, for the contention in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, which we debated only yesterday, that we can rely on the Crown to disclose all relevant material to the defence.
I wish to repeat a point made by others the other day, but which has not yet been made today. As I understand it, it is not the job of Ministers to evaluate the new evidence—though, God knows, there is enough of it. Ministers have to decide only whether new evidence of sufficient significance has emerged to warrant a referral to the Court of Appeal. In this case, that is manifestly so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made an important point. It is no good the Minister telling us that much of the new evidence was considered by the Court of Appeal in 1988 and 1989. The defendants had the bad luck to be referred to the Court of Appeal while it was still under old management. I have no doubt that there would be a different result today if the case were to be referred.
To give an idea of the extraordinary nature of the 1989 appeal judgment, one need only consider the passage about the witness, Mr. Mervyn Ritter. The gist of that passage was that the judges accepted that Mr. Mervyn Ritter was a pathological liar, but on that occasion they


believed that he could be relied on as a witness of the truth. It is hard to deal rationally with people who think along those lines, but I must restrain myself. I draw that passage to the attention of the House only as a sample of the quality of the thinking of the Court of Appeal under old management. I am confident that that would not happen again today.
The hon. Member for Southport referred to the long rooftop protest made by some of the defendants. They were on the roof of Gartree prison for 89 days in 1983, during one of the coldest winters of this century. I realise that that is not evidence, but I wish to point out to the Minister as gently as possible that the fact that someone who is arguing his innocence is prepared to endure discomfort of that magnitude is surely evidence that he feels a sense of grievance. I do not believe that someone who was trying to con us would sit for 89 days on the roof of a prison in one of the coldest winters of this century. He would not have done that if he did not feel that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. But I can see that the Minister is looking puzzled. The other evidence is strong enough and there is no need to dwell on such esoteric points. If the Minister is not convinced by it, he should forget it.
This case will not go away. If Ministers decline to refer it, it will be one of the first cases to fall on the desk of the criminal cases review authority when eventually it is set up.
All 17 of the people whom I said were innocent in my maiden speech in 1987–18, including Judith Ward, whose innocence I first drew to the attention of the House in July 1988—have had their convictions quashed and are walking the streets with compensation in their pockets. With that in mind, I can tell the Minister that I am confident that these three men will walk out of the front door of the Old Bailey with their convictions quashed, too. For the sake of everyone, not least the family of Carl Bridgewater, let us get it over with.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has been so active in campaigning against miscarriages of justice long before it was fashionable to do so.
One common thread running through the many recent miscarriages of justice is that many of those falsely convicted had some criminal background that led the police, under pressure to secure convictions, to presume guilt and then to cut corners in their investigation. The Bridgewater Four is another such case. There is no doubt that Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey, Jimmy Robinson and Pat Molloy all had criminal backgrounds, but it was the unscrupulous behaviour of Vincent Hickey that led to disaster for all four.
In late 1977, Vincent Hickey, who had a long history of petty crime, was involved with three others in deception and robbery at a house in Rickmansworth. Evidence was left behind that allowed them to be traced. On arrest in February 1978, Hickey quickly realised that the game was up and offered a deal. He would give the police the names of his accomplices if he was charged only with deception, not robbery. The result was that Vincent Hickey received only a two-year suspended sentence, while his cousin Reg Hickey—who later gave

evidence, subsequently retracted, that Vincent knew the area around Yew Tree farm—got four years in prison. The enormous value of grassing was not lost on Vincent Hickey.
On 24 November 1978—the day that Vincent Hickey was in court for the Rickmansworth job—Michael Hickey, another cousin, took part in an armed robbery at Tesco in Northfield in Birmingham. His accomplice was James Robinson, whom Michael had met at the Dog and Partridge pub in Selly Oak a month earlier, but several weeks after the cold-blooded killing of Carl Bridgewater on 19 September 1978.
Robinson later joined both Vincent and Michael Hickey in an armed robbery at Chapel farm, another isolated farm like Yew Tree farm. That coincidence did not go unnoticed by the press. Chapel farm is about an hour's drive from the site of Carl's murder. During the robbery, their car was seen and traced to Vincent's girlfriend. Vincent then went to the police with his fateful plan to escape a lengthy prison sentence by pretending to have knowledge of the murder at Yew Tree farm. In fact, his only information was gleaned from a television reconstruction of the murder. We should remember that the Hickeys had not come into contact with Robinson until after the Carl Bridgewater murder.
I give that background because it must be known that those of us who are convinced of the innocence of the Bridgewater Four are under no illusions as to the previous history of the men. Once Vincent Hickey had implicated Michael Hickey and Robinson, Molloy was drawn in because of his association as a partner in crime of Robinson's, although it is clear that he was never involved in any violent crime.
Until Vincent Hickey volunteered the other three men's names, nothing in the three-month investigation into the Carl Bridgewater case had led the police to suspect that any of the others might have had anything to do with the murder. But in four days, the men were interviewed 36 times and held in solitary confinement for the rest of the time. As has been said already this morning, the procedures that we take for granted today were not in place then.
Molloy, who at first protested his innocence, was denied access to a lawyer for 10 days. During that time, he signed a statement confessing that he was present at the murder. An account of his interrogation is given in the book by Jill Morrell and it describes violent action by Detective Constable Perkins, who broke Molloy's teeth
while his mate held me in his arms and repeatedly asked me to sign a statement saying I was at the farm upstairs, robbing it.
Molloy also describes how he was left all night and how his meals were "liberally doused in salt". He was not given anything to drink and eventually had to cup his hands in the lavatory basin and flush it to get water to drink. He ends:
I signed (the statement) out of revenge on the others and out of fear of more beatings and ill treatment … I never thought for one moment that it would be believed.
As soon as Molloy had access to a lawyer, he stated that his confession was false, that it had been dictated to him by police officers and that he had never been to Yew Tree farm.
Following Molloy's confession, Vincent Hickey suddenly realised that he was in deep trouble and admitted that he had invented his story to get off the Chapel farm robbery. He denied that he had ever been to Yew Tree farm, but it was too late; the fate of the four was sealed.
During the trial, Vincent Hickey was directed by the judge not to mention the robbery at Chapel farm, which meant that he had no credible answer to the question, "Why did you shop Robinson and incriminate yourself in this horrible murder?" As has already been said, apart from Molloy's confession, the evidence against the men was extremely flimsy. There has never been any forensic evidence against them. Michael Hickey and Robinson strenuously denied any part in the murder from first to last. Despite the inconsistencies and contradictions of Molloy's confession and the lack of any corroborating evidence, all four were charged with murder.
The men's lawyers were unaware that, until the Chapel farm robbery, Hubert Spencer had been a suspect for the murder. He was a local ambulance driver with a gun licence and an interest in antiques—antiques were stolen at Yew Tree farm. He drove a blue Vauxhall Viva of the type seen by witnesses on the afternoon of Carl's murder. He knew Yew Tree farm inside out and was a past neighbour of Carl Bridgewater, who would have recognised him.
In December 1979, one month after the four men were sentenced for the murder of Carl Bridgewater, Hubert Spencer murdered his close friend, farmer Hubert Wilks, in a similar manner to the killing of Carl Bridgewater. It is thought that the two men had been discussing the Bridgewater case shortly before the murder. Spencer claimed that he had blanked out and did not know why he had killed his friend. Although convicted of that murder, Hubert Spencer is now a free man.
One interesting aspect of the case, particularly in view of the news at the weekend that officers of West Midlands police are alleged to have offered inducements to get prisoners to confess to crimes in order to improve the clear-up rate, is the use made by the prosecution in the Bridgewater case of evidence from prisoners. What little evidence there was against the four relied heavily on allegations about the accused by witnesses from Winson Green prison, where the Hickeys and Robinson were remanded for 10 months. The court even accepted evidence against Molloy, who was not at Winson Green prison at the time.
Mervyn Ritter was transferred from Leicester prison to Winson Green soon after Michael Hickey joined Vincent Hickey and Jimmy Robinson there. He was not a category A top-security prisoner and so was kept separately from the three men. However, on 31 March, because of what he described as internal problems, he was suddenly and mysteriously moved on to landing D3, the landing confined exclusively to top-security prisoners. He subsequently testified that Robinson and Michael Hickey were always laughing their heads off and that Robinson had confessed to killing Carl Bridgewater, but adding that it was an accident.
As has already been said, at the 1988–89 appeal, Mervyn Ritter was proven to be a pathological liar, but the appeal judges ruled him to be a witness of truth in the Bridgewater case. Following the appeal hearing, new evidence, which is included in that currently being considered by the Home Secretary, was submitted in the form of a statement from a former prison officer, who said that, on hearing that the Bridgewater appeal had failed, Ritter said:
My Christ, they actually believe me.

A leaked Home Office document, written in 1991 by William Miller of DC3 division, states:
Ritter's assistance to the authorities has been quite extraordinary … Ritter enjoyed rather more privileges than the general run of ordinarily trusted … prisoners".
A similar story surrounds the evidence given by Brian Sinton, who was serving his first prison sentence for petty crime. Oddly, he also found himself close to one of the high-security prisoners in Winson Green—Michael Hickey. In contravention of prison rules, Sinton was taken for a shower with him. According to Sinton, Michael Hickey incriminated himself during the conversation in the showers. Immediately after that, Sinton was dispatched to another prison and was released after serving just 11 months of his 18-month sentence, despite having breached his original suspended sentence. His story that Michael Hickey had referred to the child crying was thrown into doubt by evidence from the pathologist, Dr. Benjamin Davis, who had concluded that Carl was not crying when he was shot. In fact, all the evidence pointed to the fact that Carl had not cried at all and the circumstance of his death suggested that he had known his killer. Carl would not have known any of the men convicted of his murder, but he did know Hubert Spencer.
The appeal was eventually lost. The only evidence remaining was the behaviour of Vincent Hickey following the Chapel farm robbery. The judges ruled that as the alibi evidence showed that Michael had been with Vincent all afternoon and they judged Vincent to be guilty, then Michael must be guilty, too. We must remember that that was at a time when the judiciary was reluctant to admit to major miscarriages of justice, especially when they rested on police evidence. It was the time of Lord Denning's "appalling vista" statement, at the unsuccessful appeal of the Birmingham Six.
Soon afterwards, further evidence was being submitted to the Home Office. It included evidence from forensic psychologist, Dr. Eric Shepherd, who had been commissioned by Merseyside police to examine defence experts' findings that there was only a one in a million chance that Molloy had confessed in the manner reported by the police. When he agreed with the defence findings, the police promptly commissioned new experts.
The trial jury foreman, Tim O'Malley, also wrote to the Home Secretary, stating that Molloy's confession had been crucial to the jury's verdict on the three men. The then Home Secretary decided that the case should not go back to the Court of Appeal, and Dr. Shepherd subsequently wrote to him expressing his strong view that DC Perkins had committed perjury. He did not receive a reply. The men's lawyers discovered that none of the language experts had even been interviewed by the police. They asked the Home Office why they had discounted Dr. Shepherd's findings. The Home Office said that there were other experts who supported the prosecution's case, but would not name them.
During all that time, the men claimed their innocence. We have already heard about Michael Hickey's rooftop protest, lasting 89 days. As a convicted child killer, he had initially faced considerable hostility from fellow prisoners, but his endurance was possible only as a result of their later support. They became convinced of his innocence.
All that is emotional stuff. Their past criminal record went against the four and their subsequent behaviour in protesting their innocence convinced many of the


truthfulness of their story. I am sure that the Minister will say that we must look at the evidence and deal in facts. It is a pity that the prosecution did not do so.
Since 1993, more evidence has been disclosed. Fourteen police interviews with Molloy were not disclosed at the trial and subsequent appeals. Every officer of every rank who interviewed Molloy was involved in substantial breaches of the then current judges rules governing the treatment of suspects, or withheld evidence at the trial. Pat Molloy's custody records have been uncovered. They show major contradictions between custody officer entries and detective interview schedules. They show that he was interviewed on at least 15 occasions without legal representation after a solicitor had been instructed and that he was interviewed without a solicitor at least seven times after he was charged.
The Home Secretary has been considering the latest submissions since 1993. In June 1994, further undisclosed evidence emerged of the fingerprints found on Carl Bridgewater's bicycle, which someone, presumably the killer or the killer's accomplice, had thrown into the pigsty at Yew Tree farm. Carl's bicycle had been put on show in the court room and had also been placed in the jury room. We all know the emotional response that that was designed to achieve. It is disgraceful that, although the police and the prosecution knew that fingerprints on the bicycle matched none of those of the four men, that information was not disclosed to the defence until quite recently.
The Home Office has been considering all the new evidence for more than two and a half years. It is clearly of a nature not to be dismissed lightly. The Minister says that the Home Office's inquiries have been thorough; it was said that the whole case was thoroughly examined in the Court of Appeal in 1988–89, but that has subsequently been proven not to be the case.
It is interesting to note that the first two police inquiries were carried out by Manchester police, and that only when John Stalker announced his intention to supervise the third inquiry was it switched to Merseyside police. I wonder why. Leaked documents from C3 show the unreliability of police witnesses. C3's William Miller wrote in 1991 of DC Perkins, who took Molloy's confession:
He maintained in evidence he had written Molloy's statement at Molloy's dictation … whether he could be said to have perjured himself appears to be a very fine point.
Miller's document confirms that
Perkins was disciplined for making false and untruthful records".
Regrettably, the disciplinary aspects are merely the tip of a somewhat polluted iceberg.
Is the Minister prepared to release the record of DC Perkins to hon. Members, now that he has died? We are now asked to believe that the police have been able to give satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies in their original evidence and in the custody records, revealed in the new evidence.
In the Home Secretary's recent press release, in which he said that he was not minded to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, he mentioned evidence that allegedly implicates Vincent Hickey and Pat Molloy in the murder. In a written parliamentary question, I asked the Home Secretary about the nature of that information. The reply that I received was:
The … information is confidential. The letter"—

the letter to the men's lawyer—
makes clear that in reaching his provisional conclusions my right hon. and learned Friend has placed no reliance on that information."—[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 6.]
We must ask, therefore, why the Home Secretary decided to put the detail of the mysterious new evidence in the press release. That is what the press focused on when they looked at the case. Yet he says that there was no reliance on that information and that it was irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, why mention it?
Every time that this case comes up, it must be agony for the parents of Carl Bridgewater. Our heart goes out to them. While the obvious miscarriage of justice continues to be ignored, the case will be raised time and again. Surely it must be time to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal. Then all the new evidence can be examined in open court and not behind closed doors.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on obtaining the debate and bringing this important matter before the House. He set out the facts and the issues that need to be considered afresh in detail and with great clarity, as did the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).
The House does not have to reach a conclusion on the evidence; nor does the Home Secretary. We simply have to consider whether there is a real danger that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Home Secretary has the power to do more than express doubts and fears. He can send the case back to the Court of Appeal. He should do so now after 17 years in which more and more doubt has grown over the safety of the court's decision.
I make a more general point about miscarriages of justice. The House decided only last night to change the law on disclosure to reduce the burden of paperwork on the police and increase the chances of convicting the guilty. We supported that measure, which we shall seek to improve in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the House warned of the need to get the balance right to ensure that the innocent are protected and that alleged miscarriages are corrected. The case that we are discussing demonstrates the need for such care and balance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) rightly referred to the dogged determination of Ann Whelan. It is worrying that there still has not been a proper review of her case after so many years. Many right hon. and hon. Members who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, may have had doubts about the strength of her case, are now convinced after her representations that that is necessary.
The cases with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been associated demonstrated overwhelmingly that some alleged miscarriages are indeed real, and leave an innocent person or persons incarcerated for long periods, their lives ruined beyond repair. It is worrying that the criminal justice system is held in such low regard by the public—because villains walk free and the innocent are sometimes convicted. That is why the Labour party called for a body to investigate miscarriages of justice as long ago as 1991, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was shadow Home Secretary.
The royal commission, which was set up to examine miscarriages of justice, recommended the urgent establishment of such a body. The Government eventually introduced a Bill to establish a criminal cases review body. We supported that Bill but expressed concern that it was weaker than what Labour or the royal commission had urged. We also expressed concern that the Government had been slow to introduce the Bill and that it was likely that they would be slow in establishing such a body. Why, oh why are the Government so slow in getting it established and operational? Why, oh why has the Home Secretary not got on with the job so that the new body can deal with the backlog of serious cases in which a grave miscarriage of justice is alleged? I do not suggest for a moment that all the alleged miscarriages will be found to be miscarriages when properly investigated, even when they are considered by the court, but there are enough serious cases in which there is serious doubt for the work of such a body to be urgent.
Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the frustration of looking at a constituency case and becoming uneasily aware of serious grounds for concern. We do not easily reach that view. The case of my constituent, Michael O'Brien, is one of many that have come to my attention. Many cases, after we have heard the arguments, do not leave us with that sense of deep unease. The Michael O'Brien case leaves me feeling deeply uneasy. In those rare cases, there is nothing that we can do. If one has the consistency of purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, one might be able to touch a small number of cases. There are, however, a number of serious cases about which hon. Members will be concerned but about which nothing can be done until that body is established and takes on the responsibility that the House has agreed that it should have in investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. We cannot as Members of Parliament set out to investigate those cases. We are not detectives. We do not have the resources. We can ask questions and then receive straight answers from the Home Secretary that get us no further forward. It is a matter of deep concern. It is a scandal that, three years after the royal commission report stated the obvious, that body has still not been established.
The royal commission's recommendation should not have been a surprise. It was set up because it was blatantly obvious that something needed to be done, that a body must be established and that other changes in the law and in the administration of justice were required. The delay in establishing the criminal cases review body is a scandal. It is a sad demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the House. It is a sad reflection on the Government's commitment on justice and it leaves a cloud over the criminal justice system.
Each of those points applies with equal strength to the case of the Bridgewater Four. It is outrageous to delay a reference back to the Court of Appeal given the facts and the underlying doubts that were set out in detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East, and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. In fairness, I should

say that my hon. Friend is not, as is sometimes alleged, soft on crime. Indeed, he is one of the Members of Parliament who is quickest to be tough on crime—but he is also tough for justice. It is only fair to place that balance in his character on the record. That is what everybody is appealing for. It is asked not that we be soft, or assume that cases should go to appeal and be dismissed, but that justice should be done, and should be seen to be done.
We heard a powerful and persuasive speech by the hon. Member for Southport, who was given a strong explicit endorsement by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It would be wise for the Minister to listen to what has been said in the debate.
Hansard is full of questions and speeches by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have examined the case and become disturbed by what they have learnt—often having started with the sort of scepticism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and I have described. The questions that have been asked over recent months make it clear how many Members on both sides of the House are now convinced that something needs to be done.
The establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission will end the Home Secretary's involvement with alleged miscarriages of justice, because the commission will be able to refer cases directly to the Court of Appeal.
I know that the Minister will not be able to give way to us today; in his brief is 20 minutes' worth of closely argued text, and doubtless he has been sent here to hold the line. I appreciate that he has little room for manoeuvre. I simply ask him to take back to the Home Secretary the clear message that the issue will not go away. Sooner or later the case will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
Neither the Home Secretary nor the House need prejudge the decision of the court, but it does Parliament and the Home Secretary no credit to delay justice. For God's sake let justice be done, and be seen to be done, by referring the case to the Court of Appeal now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on his choice of topic. I am here not, as has just been suggested, merely to hold the line, but to set out the background to the case and explain the way in which it has been dealt with up to this point.
It is right that miscarriages of justice, and the possibility of miscarriages of justice, should be a matter of the highest public concern. Such concern for justice is one of the hallmarks of a civilised democracy. Our criminal justice system, at all its stages, must work so as to protect the innocent while properly punishing the guilty.
The Government have been responsible for a series of major reforms to the criminal justice process, up to and including the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill now before Parliament. In the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 we introduced the most important and far-reaching


change of recent times to the procedures for reviewing criminal cases in the last resort. Work is well under way to establish the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, which several right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We intend the commission to start its work later this year.
Until then, the responsibility for considering cases of last resort rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as it has done with Secretaries of State since the turn of the century. It is a responsibility which all Secretaries of State, and their officials, have taken most seriously. The liberty of the citizen is at stake. So is justice, and the security of the public.
Cases such as the one highlighted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East can sometimes become the subject of intense and impassioned lobbying and campaigning by people who no doubt sincerely believe in the innocence of those convicted. The task of Secretaries of State, however, is not about deciding or believing in guilt or innocence. Their task is to reach a judgment on all the available evidence, and to decide whether the case should go back to the Court of Appeal.
Certainly, Secretaries of State must listen and pay attention to those who campaign and argue with such feeling. But at the end of the day the decision in each case must be taken calmly, objectively, in the light of all the evidence. The same principles and the same careful judgment must be applied to each and every case, whether or not it is one known to the wider public, and regardless of the degree of clamour or otherwise that may surround it.
The criteria that successive Secretaries of State have applied in considering cases are well known. There must normally be some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, touching the safety of the conviction. New, in this case, means not previously put before the courts or available to be put before the courts. Those criteria do not fetter the overall discretion, and exceptional cases have been referred outside the criteria.
The general thrust found expression in a slightly different way, by Lord Justice Simon-Brown in the divisional court judgment in Hickey and others. He said that the question to be asked was:
could the new material reasonably cause the Court of Appeal to regard the verdict as unsafe?
In applying those criteria to the case before him, the Secretary of State is bound to look at the evidence in the case as a whole, and to consider the weight and cogency of any new matters in relation to the overall picture. I have heard it argued, in relation to this case and perhaps to others, that the Secretary of State should immediately send any case in which there is credible new evidence straight to the Court of Appeal.
That is quite mistaken. It is also plainly absurd, because if that happened there would be no purpose in having a role for the Secretary of State, or for the new commission. Every convicted person could simply take his or her evidence straight back to the Court of Appeal, which would become clogged with hopeless cases.
Of course the threshold applied by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal is lower than that which would be applied by the court itself when deciding whether to allow an appeal.

But the Secretary of State is entitled to take a view of the weight and cogency of matters placed before him, in the light of the overall picture. Indeed, it is his duty to do so.
In relation to the particular case on which this debate has focused, there is a long and involved history of reviews and investigations spanning the 17 years since the convictions of the four defendants. It has sometimes been suggested—indeed, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others suggested so again today—that simply because there have been so many investigations, the case should be referred again to the courts. That is false logic.
Successive Secretaries of State have been determined in the interests of fairness to have all the new matters put before them fully and properly investigated, however slight or implausible some of these matters may have appeared at first sight. If we investigated only matters bound to lead to a reference to the Court of Appeal, we should quite rightly be criticised for dealing with cases superficially, and for seeking justice on the cheap.
At this point I would like to pay tribute, as I have done before, to the quality of the investigation work carried out in the case, especially by the Merseyside police in the two most recent inquiries. Those inquiries have been exceptionally rigorous and exhaustive. Every lead has been followed. Witnesses have been interviewed and re-interviewed. The most painstaking research has been carried out. Considering the time that has elapsed since the events of the case, that is a formidable achievement.
We are fortunate that such expertise and energies have been applied to the illumination of this case—work that is by no means untypical of the quality of police work in other miscarriage investigations. Parliament was wise to ensure that such skills and expertise will also be available in future to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The comprehensive and meticulous nature of these inquiries can be judged from the substantial volume of statements and other material that has been disclosed to the solicitors for the four men, in accordance with the divisional court judgment in ex parte Hickey and others. That was an important judgment. It acknowledged that there had to be a balance in matters of disclosure, and that in some circumstances it would be right for material to be kept confidential. I assure hon. Members that we have gone out of our way in the present case to see that the interests of fairness are met, by providing all the material that is, in our judgment, relevant to the provisional conclusions that we have reached.
As we announced on 7 December, our provisional conclusion, having given the most careful consideration to all the material in the case, and having applied the criteria that I explained earlier, is that the case should not be referred back to the Court of Appeal. We have set out our reasoning in detail and provided the supporting material. On Monday afternoon this week we received a 34-page submission from the solicitors acting for those who were convicted. I understand that that is only a partial response and that the solicitors intend to make further submissions at an unspecified later date. We shall of course consider most carefully the points that have been put to us.
On our provisional conclusions and the response from the solicitors, I do not want to anticipate or prejudge our final consideration, but I propose to set out the evidence on which our provisional conclusions are based and, where possible, to respond to some of the points that hon.


Members have made. If there are points that I cannot immediately answer or if we run out of time, I will ensure that those points are taken into account before a final decision is taken.
As I explained earlier, the Secretary of State's task is to consider any new matters in the context of the evidence, old or new, as a whole. That includes of course evidence that formed the prosecution case at trial and that has not been set aside by the Court of Appeal. In the present case, much of the evidence was examined by the Court of Appeal in 1989, following a reference of the case by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). The appeal hearing was, at the time, unprecedented in its length—hon. Members have referred to it—and the court's judgment ran to 216 pages. Clearly, any fresh consideration of the case must have regard to the existing evidence and to any view that the Court of Appeal may have taken about that evidence on a previous occasion.
Recent representations in the case have focused largely on the case against Patrick Molloy, but there is separate evidence against each of the four convicted men. Against James Robinson there is the evidence of Mervyn Ritter, Helen Johnston, James Dundas-Ure, Patricia Copus and Peter Bryant. There was also direct evidence identifying Mr. Robinson at the crime scene and evidence of association between Mr. Robinson and the others, evidence of his possession of a gun, and evidence of his reaction when police officers asked him about the gun.
In 1989, the Court of Appeal found Mr. Ritter's evidence in the case to be worthy of belief, despite its acceptance of his reputation as a confidence trickster and a liar. The court found nothing inherently unreliable in Helen Johnston's evidence and nothing in what it had heard to cast doubt on the verdict in so far as it depended on Mr. Dundas-Ure's evidence. It found nothing to justify rejection of Peter Bryant's evidence or to cast doubt on the reliance that the jury may have placed on the evidence of Miss Stagg, a schoolteacher who identified Mr. Robinson as having been at the crime scene at the material time. The court concluded that the case against James Robinson was and remained strong and convincing.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: What weight does the Minister give to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), with all his experience of these matters, has described as the unique position where the jury foreman at the original trial is saying that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place?

Mr. Kirkhope: It is a matter not of the amount of weight that I give to that, but of the Appeal Court's reconsideration in 1989. It placed no reliance on that—certainly not in the terms that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Since then, we have been asked to consider fresh allegations purporting to cast doubt on the credibility of one of the witnesses, Mr. Ritter, to whom hon. Members have referred. On investigation, those allegations have been found to be largely groundless. Our provisional conclusion is that they provide no reason to think that the Court of Appeal would give Mr. Ritter's evidence any less credence than it did in 1989. As I have said, there was other evidence against Mr. Robinson.
In interviews with the police, Vincent Hickey made detailed admissions—which he later retracted—about his involvement in the burglary at Yew Tree farm. The whole of those interviews were adduced at the 1988–89 appeal hearing. The court was unable to accept the claim that Vincent was or might have been trading false information for immunity from prosecution for another robbery. The Court of Appeal described the evidence against Vincent Hickey as overwhelming. No fresh matters have since been raised that go directly to the evidence against Vincent Hickey.
In 1989, when examining the evidence against Michael Hickey, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it placed no reliance on evidence given at trial by Brian Sinton or Reginald Hickey. Considering the totality of evidence, however, from Michael Lee, Detective Constable Massey, Detective Sergeant Williams, Dennis Eaton, Peter Bryant, prison officer Kelly and Mervyn Ritter, the evidence of association and the evidence of Michael Hickey's access to vehicles of the type observed at the crime scene, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Hickey left the Dog and Partridge public house in company with his cousin Vincent and that thereafter he was at the scene of the burglary of Yew Tree farm. No fresh matters have been raised that go directly to the evidence against Michael Hickey, except for the allegations about Mr. Ritter that I have just dealt with and that hon. Members have referred to.
As has already been said, the fourth defendant, Patrick Molloy, died in prison in 1981 while his application for leave to appeal was pending. His conviction was not referred with the others to the Court of Appeal in 1989 because, at the time, it was thought that the law did not permit an appeal by a deceased person. Since then, in the case of Giuseppe Conlon, it has been established that such an appeal can be heard by means only of a Secretary of State reference.
The evidence against Mr. Molloy at his trial consisted of his admissions at different times to police officers and prison officers. He signed a confession statement, known as exhibit 54. In his proof of evidence, Mr. Molloy recorded not only that he was the author of exhibit 54, but that, in his view, the statements of detective officers Perkins, Leeke, Watson, Wood, Scott and Wys were a correct account of what he had said in interviews with them.
Representations have alleged that Mr. Molloy's admissions while in police custody were made under duress, were fabricated, or both. One of the officers who interviewed Mr. Molloy, the late Detective Constable Perkins, was disciplined for his part in falsifying evidence in a later case. Language analysts have expressed doubts about whether Molloy's reported admissions were in his own words. There are allegations that Mr. Molloy was assaulted and that records of interviews with him were not disclosed to the defence.
In recent years, in a number of appeals and references to the Court of Appeal, alleged malpractice by police officers has been the main issue. Some of those appeals and references have resulted in convictions being quashed. Mindful of that background, we have examined with particular care the fresh representations made in relation to Mr. Molloy's treatment by police officers and his admissions to them. The inquiries made on our behalf in relation to those points have been exceptionally thorough and detailed. In our provisional conclusions,


we have sought to explain as fully and clearly as possible what those inquiries have revealed and how they have been taken into account.
The fact that one officer, the late Detective Constable Perkins, was disciplined for falsifying evidence in another case cannot be a ground for referring this case to the Court of Appeal. There would have to be other evidence that, on its own or taken with the evidence of Detective Constable Perkins' later misconduct, casts doubt on the safety of the conviction. We have considered carefully the allegations of ill treatment, but we have found little evidence to support them. The allegation that Mr. Molloy had his teeth broken—to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred—is not borne out by prison medical records and is directly contradicted by a photograph of Mr. Molloy taken on 18 December 1978, eight days after he signed his confession statement, which shows him smiling with his teeth intact. That was discovered during the recent thorough investigation in 1993–95. Our provisional conclusion is that there is no basis in those allegations for referring the case to the Court of Appeal.
The opinions of the language analysts were considered during the previous review of the case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Substantial doubts exist about the methodology and overall validity of some of those analyses, and some of the opinions submitted were based on a misconception of the way in which interviews and statements were noted and written up. The suggestion that Mr. Molloy could not have said certain things attributed to him is directly contradicted by what he said about the making of exhibit 54 and the accuracy of the statements in his proof of evidence. None the less, the further submission delivered to us two days ago asks us to reconsider matters relating to Mr. Molloy's confession statement and the interviews immediately leading to that statement. We will reconsider those matters with the utmost care.
It is alleged that there was a failure to disclose records of interviews with Mr. Molloy because, at times, the custody record of his detention refers to visits by police officers for which there is no corresponding statement. No undisclosed interview records have been found,

however, and there is nothing in any other evidence—for example, in Mr. Molloy's discussions with his solicitor—to suggest that any such interviews took place.
The inquiries made on our behalf have sought to establish, as fully as possible, bearing in mind the passage of 17 years, what actually happened. The picture that emerges is of a provincial police station unused to the level of activity associated with a murder inquiry, in which the accuracy of records suffered. The term "interview" was very likely applied generically to any contact between an officer and a prisoner—as the natural meaning of the word permits—and there is no reason to suppose that, on every occasion, questioning took place that should have been recorded. If there were any evidence of undisclosed interviews, that would require grave consideration, but I repeat that there is no such evidence and it is our provisional conclusion that nothing in that aspect of the representations would justify a reference to the Court of Appeal.
The evidence in Mr. Molloy's case as a whole contains, on the one hand, the allegations about ill treatment, fabrication and undisclosed statements, none of which appears to be supported. On the other hand, there is the confession which was signed by Mr. Molloy; his confirmation to his solicitor that the statements by police officers were accurate about what he had said to them; his subsequent spontaneous admissions to other police officers and prison officers; and the evidence of Helen Johnston, who overheard Mr. Molloy say to Mr. Robinson:
whatever you do, whatever you say, say the gun went off accidentally".
In addition, the recent inquiries have led to a number of other witnesses coming forward with evidence of admissions that Mr. Molloy continued to make about his part in the raid on Yew Tree farm right up to the day before his death two and a half years after he was charged. We have approached such evidence with caution, discounting some which lacks credibility but taking due account, along with all the other evidence, of those statements that do have credibility. Our provisional conclusion has been made clear. Other matters have been raised with us—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

Trans-European Network

Mr. Robert Hicks: I trust that the Minister will forgive me for reminding him of a little piece of recent political history relating to the south-west. Before the 1970 general election, the Conservative party produced a west country manifesto. It contained three principal commitments, one of which was to develop and upgrade the A38 trunk road link between the west country and the rest of the country. Many of us felt that that manifesto was very effective.
Of those colleagues who are still in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was re-elected on that occasion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) was elected for the first time. I mention that to emphasise to the Minister the necessity for the south-west, because of its peripheral position, to have excellent transport links not only with the rest of the United Kingdom but with Europe.
In the intervening 25 years, the transport infrastructure has been significantly improved. The road network has been developed, and, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is possible to drive from Saltash in my constituency to London or Glasgow without, in theory, changing gear. Our air links have likewise been strengthened and consolidated. To complete the transport infrastructure, it is now right to concentrate on improving and upgrading our rail links, especially as the channel tunnel is now in operation.
In any debate of this kind, one cannot avoid reference to the fragility of the economy of the far south-west. We are going through a period of readjustment following the reduction in our defence requirements. The recognition of our current economic situation is made manifest by the fact that much of Devon and Cornwall is classified as eligible for European regional aid. In a national context, many parts of the region have assisted area status or rural development area status.
Business and the population as a whole are determined to reverse the downward economic trend, and there are many encouraging signs. It almost goes without saying that to maintain the region's competitive advantage, our transport system must be developed.
Following a commitment in the Maastricht treaty, the European Union is shortly to witness an exciting phase in the development of the transport network throughout the Union. Proposals are being put in place for a trans-European network. As I understand the current position—no doubt the Minister will confirm it when he responds—the European Commission is at present preparing to submit to the Council of Ministers proposals that will form the basis of the first generation of trans-European network classifications.
At present, the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance rail route is not included. Brittany, which has a similar geographical position and a similar economy to those of Devon and Cornwall, already has a TGV link to Brest and Paris. The European Parliament has agreed that the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance link should be added to the list.
Within Devon and Cornwall, there is unanimity of opinion among business organisations such as the West Country development corporation and Devon and Cornwall International, our inward investment agency,

as well as among individual companies and local authorities, that the region should not lose out and thus be placed at a disadvantage in relation to other UK and European regions in attracting inward investment.
To try to persuade the Minister to change his mind on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter led an all-party delegation to see the Minister in November. On that occasion, the Minister played a politically straight bat that Geoffrey Boycott and—dare I say it because it gives away my age—Trevor Bailey would have been proud of in their prime.
The situation cannot be allowed to continue. I am quietly confident that the Government are now prepared to review the position and to be more positive about this requirement. I do not wish to sound patronising when I say that the Minister has an appreciation of the political sensitivities of this issue in our region. That characteristic was not necessarily shared by all his predecessors.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I entirely approve of my hon. Friend's case—as, I think, do all our west country colleagues. Does my hon. Friend agree that closely tied up with the issue is the upgrading of the A38, and that, had his plans and mine for a key-route designation, a bluish tinge, for the A38 been adopted, it would have made a great difference and would have fitted in well with the plan that he is outlining for our railway system? That is part of the debate as well.

Mr. Hicks: I entirely share that view. I was about to say that, a couple of years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and I went to see the Minister's predecessor. I mentioned that because, as my hon. Friend said, the issues are linked. We suggested to the Minister who was at that time responsible for roads that there should be an upgrading of the designation of the A38 trunk road between Exeter and Plymouth. It is disturbing and ludicrous that Plymouth, the sub-region's natural growth point, should not be directly linked or adjacent to our motorway network.
We gave the Minister's predecessor an opportunity to go down in history as the Minister who introduced the concept of key routes—that is to say, the A classified trunk roads (M) designation. His name would have appeared as part of the legend on all road maps of the United Kingdom. Although it would not have cost the Government anything, he failed to respond to our suggestion. I am hopeful that the current Minister will be more positive.
I have two modest requests on behalf of my native west country. First, Her Majesty's Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, should today give a clear statement of intent that the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance rail link will be incorporated into the trans-European network. That is crucial, because any potential inward investor, whether from another part of the United Kingdom or Japan, the United States or wherever, must see from a map of the UK that our regional rail link has the same designation—in other words, the line is the same colour on the map—as those linking south Wales, the north-east or Scotland with London and the European mainland.
My second request is that my hon. Friend will ensure that the necessary funds are made available for a feasibility study in the very near future to consider the upgrading of our rail link. Both those requirements are essential.

Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the second request is the more crucial, especially to my constituency, which is literally at the end of the line? Unless detailed work is done now on what is required to upgrade the railway right down to Penzance, it will never be done.

Mr. Hicks: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I would not like to differentiate in any way between the relative importance of the two requests. The colour of that line, that statement of intent on the map, is crucial to inward investment, especially from overseas.
Both the requirements are essential if the south-west economy is not to be placed at a disadvantage compared to other United Kingdom and European regions. Furthermore, by agreeing to my two requests, the Minister will be sending a positive message to the south-west that the Government have listened to our arguments and are prepared to help.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) on the way in which he has presented his case. I am also grateful to him for allowing me a couple of minutes to support his argument from the Opposition Benches. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the case that he has made this morning, which we also put to the Minister in the deputation, enjoys the support of every party and all parts of the west country. We all believe it to be absolutely critical to the future well-being and economic health of our region.
I pay tribute especially to the effort that the Western Morning News has put into the campaign over recent weeks. It has recognised the campaign's validity and importance, and entirely supported all our efforts. I should also put on record the effort made by our Member of the European Parliament, Robin Teverson. He has kept the issue alive in the European Parliament over several weeks.
As my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall has emphasised, there are no obstacles on the other side of the water in the way of achieving what he, I and all of us want. Not only has the European Parliament reasserted the importance of identifying the route as part of the trans-European network for high-speed purposes, but the Commission—I have the Commission's opinion—has endorsed that view. There is no obstacle in Brussels to what we are trying to achieve. The only obstacle would appear to be here, in Whitehall.
I know from what the Minister told us on that splendid cricketing occasion to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall referred what arguments he will put in this debate. He will say, "Ah, but the campaign only amounts to a wish list." That is precisely the point. If every other part of the European Union in comparable circumstances—perhaps on the periphery of the Union—is able to identify itself as being on the international wish list for improvement of its main transport arteries and we are not, by definition, the fact that we are left out is as important to us as their inclusion is to them. That exclusion will be taken as a sign—not only to those who are already investing in our region but to those who might intend to—that we are economic and transport second-class citizens.
The second point that I know the Minister will make, as he did when the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) led us in deputation, is that it is up to Railtrack to take the initiative. As a result of conversations with Railtrack, I do not think that it agrees with that analysis. Railtrack says that, if every other part of the EU is identifying routes by means of a TEN designation and the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance route is not being designated, and if other routes in other parts of the United Kingdom are being designated and the BPP route is not, it would find it extremely difficult to take any initiative in our region. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall is absolutely right to say that the colour of the line on the map is significant to everyone concerned. It is not just symbolic—it is a clear signal.
Railtrack will clearly have to prioritise its efforts. Given its investment time scale, it is extremely important to give it a clear indication of where that investment should be prioritised. That is why I absolutely endorse the second point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall about the need for funding a feasibility study.
I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you cannot indicate your support, but I believe that your heart is with us on the issue. We are all in this together.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): It is indeed appropriate that you are presiding over our deliberations, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) on securing the debate. I recognise the great importance of good transport infrastructure, whether by road or rail, for the economic regeneration of Cornwall and other parts of the west country, and the importance of the area attracting the necessary inward investment in order to provide the job opportunities that we want.
The importance of those issues is underlined by the presence of so many of my hon. Friends who represent the south-west—my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope).
The draft trans-European network proposal was considered by the Transport Council in June 1995, and has been considered twice since then by the European Parliament. The European Parliament concluded its Second Reading in December. Among the amendments it proposed were a number to the maps, including the recategorisation of the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance route from a conventional to a high-speed rail route. It is important to recognise that the route is on the rail trans-European network, but as a conventional route, not a high-speed one. Those and other European Parliament amendments will be considered by the EC's Conciliation Committee, which is expected to meet for the first time in about two weeks.
We secured as much coverage of UK routes on the network maps as seemed reasonable in the context of overall European coverage. I am pleased to say that that includes the London to Taunton via Westbury and Waterloo to Exeter lines, as well as the Bristol-Penzance line. The draft TEN network therefore fully recognises the importance of links to the west country.
The draft rail network maps distinguish between high-speed and conventional routes. The draft guidelines, at draft article 9, provide criteria for the inclusion of rail routes as high-speed routes. They are as follows:
The high speed rail network shall comprise:
Specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 kmph"—
which I believe is 155 mph—
in current or new technology.
Specially adapted high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 kmph"—
or 125 mph.
Lines specially adapted for high speed of a specific nature by virtue of topographical relief or town planning constraints where speed must be adapted to each case.
The Department has relied upon advice from British Rail and Railtrack on the categorisation of routes for the United Kingdom map. That advice has been informed by existing line speeds and investment priorities. I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the map is not a wish list; it must represent current realities or future plans. Accordingly, the UK routes that are shown as high speed are the east coast main line, the west coast main line and some of its connecting links, the proposed channel tunnel rail link, and the Great Western line from London to Cardiff.

Mr. Tyler: Will any of the links to the west coast main line take the TEN into the wilds of western Scotland?

Mr. Watts: From memory, I cannot recollect whether the links go into the wilds of western Scotland, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I prefer not to rely on my failing memory.
Services on the east coast main line already reach speeds in excess of those stipulated for the greater part of the route, so it is represented as "upgraded high speed". The channel tunnel rail link will be capable of speeds of up to 186 mph, and is therefore shown as a planned high-speed TEN route. Proposals for upgrading the west coast main line are being advanced, and the line is therefore shown as a planned upgraded high-speed line, although final decisions have yet to be taken on the future speed capability of the route.
Since the start of discussions on TENs, British Rail and Railtrack have advised the Department that the UK rail TEN should show the line from London to Bristol and

Cardiff as planned high speed because—in common with the east coast main line—the greater part of that longer route satisfies the criteria. All other UK rail routes represented on the rail TEN are shown in the draft rail TENs map as conventional routes. I am informed that the Bristol-Penzance line has a maximum speed capability, on parts of it, of 110 mph, and therefore does not fall within the criteria.
The rail TEN, in common with the other transport TENs, is indicative, and does not place any financial or other commitments on member states to complete or upgrade existing rail infrastructure. In other words, the existence of any route on the rail TEN—whether high-speed or conventional—does not compel the UK to bring forward any specific investment projects. However, infrastructure investment projects proposed by member states on routes represented on the rail TENs maps, of whatever classification, will be eligible, in principle, for assistance from the Commission's TENs budget.
The UK rail map agreed at the June 1995 Transport Council includes all the major links to the south-west of England, albeit as conventional routes, so projects on those routes would be eligible, in principle, for EC funding. I must emphasise that TENs funding for any project is limited to 10 per cent. of the total project costs, and that the overall TENs budget is comparatively small.
I do not know whether it was a compliment or a criticism when my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall drew comparisons with my skill at cricket—I certainly have no such skill. However, I assure him that, even when I appear to be playing with a very straight bat, I listen to what people tell me, and take appropriate action afterwards.
I have been impressed by representations from my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends that the case for upgrading should be examined. I have therefore recommended, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved, a bid for TENs funding towards a feasibility study, which will consider investment options on the Great Western lines for both passenger and freight traffic. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that that is a positive step—much more positive than simply getting out a marker pen and changing the colour of a line on a map. It is a positive step towards securing the improved rail infrastructure to which they aspire.
I want briefly to deal with some of the comments about roads. I was intrigued by the notion of key routes. I just wonder what they will be called if I deliver them.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We now move on to the next debate.

Bristol Royal Infirmary (Cancer Treatment)

Ms Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the difficulties and the appalling situation that has developed in Bristol as a result of the Government's policy. In this short debate I want to cover what is happening with oncology services in Bristol, why it is happening and the consequences for patients. I also want to deal with Government policy in respect of the Caiman committee recommendations and the conflict between those and the funding package that the Government put together and give to Avon health authority. I then want to make three suggestions on how to deal with the crisis.
On 15 February, in an article under the heading, "Cash blow to cancer ward", the Western Daily Press said that dying cancer patients were being denied the radiotherapy that they needed and that they were being turned away from the oncology centre. That day, the Minister of State was in Bristol and when questioned about the crisis he said that it was a little local difficulty—a temporary financial difficulty that would be sorted out by the local health authority. I shall want to return to those comments.
I was home in Bristol by Thursday evening and was able to see the Bristol Evening Post, which carried harrowing interviews with family members of patients who are dying from cancer and who have been turned away from the centre. One incident that I especially remember related to a mother speaking of her 37-year-old daughter who has ovarian cancer and who was turned away from the radiotherapy centre. Her mother found her at home, on her haunches, reeling with pain and without proper pain relief. She was in desperate need of a bed in the oncology centre, but she was told by the centre that its beds were closed because of a financial crisis and therefore she could not be admitted.
We are supposed to have a national health service. We are supposed to be able to provide members of our community, wherever they live, with the same treatment and access to treatment. Yet in Bristol patients are being denied treatment simply because of where they live.

Ms Jean Corston: No doubt my hon. Friend, like me, will have received letters from constituents who are intimately and directly concerned with the cash crisis. I have received letters this week and one in particular was very moving. It refers to the fact that the unit in question is the main cancer centre for the south-west of England and it states:
My colleague's wife has this week had her pain relieving treatment delayed due to the lack of money and is unaware of when she will actually receive this treatment. It is appalling and immoral that this can be allowed to happen.
This is an indiscriminate and debilitating disease that can affect anyone in my family and yours at any time! The thought of having to stand by and watch one of my family in excruciating pain when there are the facilities there, quite frankly appals me.

Ms Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I, too, have received many letters from family members. I know that the staff at the oncology centre in Bristol are under tremendous pressure and stress because of the appalling situation in which they find

themselves and the distress being caused to the patients whom they are there to assist. I shall return to the problem of the pressure that the staff are under.
The Bristol Evening Post editorial, on 22 February, sums up very well the problems in Bristol—although the funding crisis is not unique to Bristol. Specialist facilities across the country are experiencing similar difficulties as we move towards the end of the financial year. The editorial said:
Terminally-ill cancer sufferers are being turned away from treatment at the Bristol Oncology Centre; beds usually used for seriously ill children stand idle in Southmead Hospital".
The other hospital in the city announced a few days later that it would close a quarter of its acute paediatric beds because of a cash crisis. We have a national shortage of acute paediatric beds, and yet a health authority is being forced to close a quarter of its beds. The editorial continues:
if ever there was evidence of a National Health Service in crisis we have it here and now in our area.
What we are experiencing, in the most dramatic fashion, is the 11-month health service. In other words: don't fall seriously ill in March.
It appears as though cash-limit budgets were set and those figures are being reached before the end of the financial year—so the work stops.
Everyone in the health service is desperate to provide the best possible care for those with the greatest need.
It is impossible, however, not to use emotive words when the dying and seriously ill children are so clearly victims.
Lack of funding, top-heavy management and bungling bureaucracy are all blamed.
In what other area of service or business would you simply cease production if budgetary limits had been reached early?
I can think of none. In the health service, that practice is particularly repugnant.
The staff at the Bristol oncology centre have been working overtime without being paid. They are totally dedicated to providing that service, and they are distraught that one of the five radiotherapy machines has been decommissioned and that staff members are being required to go elsewhere. They are desperate that the treatment—which they know will relieve pain, assist patients and is available in the hospital—is being denied. The NHS is failing people in their time of need.
A general practitioner wrote to me, on behalf of many of her colleagues, to express how appalled they were at the prospect of terminally ill patients being denied proper pain relief and being sent back into the community without proper support. For those GPs, that practice exemplifies how appalling are the reforms that the Government have introduced into the health service, converting planning and strategic decisions into rationing and competing management priorities.
The background to the problems in Bristol and its oncology centre is basically an increase in the number of patients who need treatment. There are three main reasons for the increase. First, people are living longer. We should celebrate that, but the incidence of cancers is of course also greater. Secondly, there is greater opportunity to treat people more effectively with new technologies, particularly new drugs. Those new treatments were not previously available for, for example, patients with breast cancer or bowel cancer. Thirdly, because the Bristol oncology centre is a regional centre, it receives more


referrals to its expert facilities. That is a result of the Caiman committee report on cancer, which was endorsed by the Government, which recommended that people should be treated at the appropriate centre as quickly as possible with the most effective treatment.
The financial crisis in Bristol has been building up during the past four years, and it is not temporary. Despite extra money from Avon health authority, it still finds itself with a £500,000 overspend. The discussion about whether terminally ill patients should receive pain-relieving treatment is only the beginning of the debate. The current budget cannot be balanced without discussions on further rationing.
The discussion in Bristol and Avon is now about limiting the number of patients, because the allocated money can pay for only X number of patients to have access to the facilities and, once that number has been reached, no one else will be treated in Bristol. Where will those people go? Who will treat them, and at what additional cost, to them—in terms of a decline in life style and life opportunities—to their families, probably to the health authority and inevitably to the Government?
We are faced with the proposition that a regional centre in Bristol, which is funded by money from Somerset, Dorset and Gloucester—because it treats patients from those places—and from Avon, will be able to treat patients from Somerset, Dorset and Gloucester because their health authorities have more money and will be able to pay, while patients from Avon who have more serious cancers will be turned away simply because of geography. How is that a national health service? Is that an equitable distribution of resources? How will Conservative Members who represent seats in Avon explain to their constituents why they cannot have treatment, while someone down the road in Somerset, Gloucester or Dorset will be able to?
Avon health authority has said that no more finances are available and that the cupboard is bare. It cannot help the oncology centre. The authority has had a meagre increase in its budget for next year, and it has competing demands. It would have to consider cutting services for orthopaedic patients, children or kidney patients to maintain cancer services. That is not acceptable, and we will not tolerate it.
The authority said that it may have to look for alternative treatments that are not as successful or turn people away. That is more work for district nurses, more work for GPs and more work for the families, who are left with family members who need more support and who are in desperate pain, with a declining quality of life.
I asked the oncology centre in Bristol to tell me how much treatment costs, because we must look very carefully at the fixed and the variable costs of treatment. People there told me that a palliative course of treatment for pain relief costs, on average, £500 per patient, while it is £1,000 per patient for a curative course of radiotherapy treatment. Are the Government seriously suggesting that a person's dignity and quality of life are not worth £500 and are not worth finding the extra money? I sincerely hope not. From the letters that I have received from Avon health authority and the trust, and from the discussions that are going on in Bristol, it is clear that we could have further and severe rationing in the service.
That takes me to the proposals of the Caiman committee report and the conflicts that arise from it. The report is excellent, and lays out clearly how cancer services should be provided and co-ordinated to include GPs, community hospitals, small district hospitals and tertiary referral centres such as Bristol. I wish to quote a few examples from the summary of the report's recommendations and action points. The summary says:
All cancer patients should have access to a uniformly high standard of care.
The Government have endorsed that recommendation, and I agree with it. There should be a bracket afterwards, however, saying "(except for Bristol)" as that quality of service is not being provided in the area.
The summary continues:
The needs of patients and their carers should be the primary concern of purchasers, planners and professionals involved in cancer services.
Those needs are the primary concern of the health authority and of those providing the services, but not of the Government who hold the purse-strings. Despite endorsing the recommendations in the Caiman report, they are not providing the money that is needed to support the centres.
The summary continues:
Cancer Centres and Cancer Units should be established to provide an integrated network of cancer care. Effective communications between components, including communication between Cancer Centres are vital.
That is exactly the strategy that the Bristol oncology centre has pursued. Its services are linked with the Royal United hospital at Bath and with Weston-super-Mare, where consultants are based. Yet the centre is being penalised and not rewarded, and staff face the appalling prospect of having to explain to patients why they cannot have the treatment that they need.
The summary states:
There should be a clear understanding of appropriate referral and follow up patterns between General Practitioners, Cancer Units and Cancer Centres.
That is exactly what the Bristol oncology centre has done. The summary adds:
Radiotherapy should normally be provided in a Cancer Centre".
That is what the Bristol oncology centre is. The summary continues:

"In exceptional geographical circumstances it may be necessary to continue to provide radiotherapy in Cancer Units closely linked to Cancer Centres".
Exactly that type of network has been built up around the Bristol oncology centre.
Palliative care and symptom control should be available at all stages of a patient's illness.
That is exactly what is being denied the people of Bristol.
Those recommendations were followed up by a circular from the NHS executive dated 21 April 1995 which stated that the Secretary of State accepted the report's recommendations and welcomed the aim of delivering a uniformly high level of cancer care based on a network of expertise. Has the Secretary of State forgotten where Bristol is? Has he forgotten that the word "uniformly" means that people everywhere should have the same access? It is a desperate state of affairs.
At the heart of the matter is the unfair and unscrupulous way in which the Government manipulate funding to local health authorities, and it is to that subject that I will turn in my closing remarks. Money is not allocated to health authorities on the basis of equity. The weighted capitation formula, which allocates money to Bristol, is mediated by the market forces factor, which removes from Bristol and Avon £25 million of resources.
The Government remove that money—having decided that we do not need it—and give it to other areas. They came up with the incredible formula by dividing the country into four zones—zone one is inner London, zone two is outer London, zone three is the rest of the south-east and zone four is the rest of England, including Avon. This year, the Department of Health rejigged the weightings for zone four, but it was purely a cosmetic exercise and exactly the same relationship exists.
In a letter from M. A. Harris of the NHS executive finance and performance directorate to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) dated 5 July 1995, my hon. Friend was told that the staff pay index—or market forces factor—will continue to operate. The Government assume that average wage costs in the first three zones are above the national average—although that bears no resemblance to actual wage costs in those zones—and therefore authorities in those zones need more money. The Government find that money by cutting the budgets of all the health authorities in zone four by 6.5 per cent.
The problem is that the average wage in Avon is above the national average, not below it. We are therefore in the perverse position that East Sussex—whose average wage costs are considerably below the national average—gets more money for its services than Avon, where the costs are above the national average. On the figures for the current financial year, had Avon not been cheated of that 6.5 per cent., we would have had an extra £25 million to spend in the Bristol and Avon area. If that had been the case, the oncology centre would not have a financial crisis and Southmead would not have to close its paediatric centre. We would not be facing the end of the welfare benefits advice that is currently given, and there would not be a cut in preventive health care strategies. There would be no cuts in physiotherapy, and patients would not be told to wait six to nine months for urgent physiotherapy. Instead, we would be seeing a development of these services. Before anybody talks about bureaucracy in Avon health authority, I shall put on record that it has one of the lowest levels of administrative costs in the entire country. It is an efficient and effective health authority.
I want to know what the Minister is going to do about the problem. First, will he today make emergency funds available from the Department of Health—as has been done in cases in London—to help the oncology service in Bristol through its current problem? Secondly, will he institute a departmental inquiry into why the current situation arose? Why has the Government's strategy for cancer treatment, as exemplified by the Caiman committee report, been undercut and destroyed by the current policy of the Government on allocating funds? I would also like to ask for an emergency review of the market forces factor. If health authorities are to receive extra funding on the basis of wage costs, they should do so on actual wage costs—not some mythical figure that discriminates against other health authorities.
The professional workers—the nurses, doctors and support staff—in the Bristol oncology unit should have the last word on behalf of the patients. They recently wrote to the chief executive of Bristol royal infirmary
to make it clear that we also share the view that it is impossible to save significant amounts of money by service reduction in this financial year, it is also impossible equitably to restrict the service offered to the population of Avon Health in future years … We feel that the service that we provide is a normal standard oncology service provided by any regional centre
and it cannot be cut further. The letter continues:
We are seriously concerned about the present situation and the future of the care that we are able to offer to our patients, including the provision of new developments in oncology, but as clinicians, we feel that we should continue to offer the current standard of care. To acquiesce in a reduction of standard would be professionally unacceptable".
They will not choose—and nor should the Government—who is entitled to have treatment and who is not.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the debate launched by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and I congratulate her on raising a serious subject. I know that she takes a keen interest in health service provision in Bristol, especially that affecting the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) also spoke briefly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have both approached me about the matter and are extremely concerned.
In the short time available for me to respond, I should briefly put the debate into context. The demand for cancer treatment has risen over the years for several reasons. People live longer and cancer incidence increases as people age, so the number of patients with cancer is also rising. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South said, the range of options available for treating patients has also risen as chemotherapy drugs have improved. Technological developments in radiotherapy mean that treatments can be more highly targeted and much more effective.
None the less, cancer places a heavy burden on society and the national health service. The bald statistics are appalling. One in three people will develop cancer and one in four will die from it. To speak of cancer as a single disease is unhelpful because it is a range of diseases that affect different parts of the body in different ways. Cancer's multiple sites and the complexity of its treatment and care pose a major challenge for the NHS.
That the NHS has responded, and continues to respond, well to the challenge cannot be disputed. There has, of course, been substantial investment in research over the years into new forms of treatment and care for cancer. Surgical and radiotherapy techniques have improved in recent years, bringing benefits to patients and there have been dramatic improvements in the management of some of the less common cancers, such as childhood leukaemia. With some cancers, new drug treatments have brought about modest but significant cure rates—perhaps most dramatically with testicular cancer, which now has a 90 to 95 per cent. cure rate. There have also been


significant advances in the palliation of symptoms, especially pain control, so improving the quality of life of people who have to live daily with the disease.
As the hon. Member for Bristol, South knows, "The Health of the Nation" strategy, which was launched in 1992, set national objectives and targets in five key areas, including cancer. After coronary heart disease, cancers are the most common cause of death in England and accounted for one in four deaths in 1991.
To further emphasise our commitment to improved cancer services, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, on 24 May 1995, after wide consultation, unveiled a strategic framework for the development of cancer services based on the report, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South referred at some length. The report recommended that cancer services be organised at three levels: primary care, which is regarded as the focus of cancer care; cancer units, created in local hospitals; and cancer centres, situated in larger hospitals which will treat the less common cancers and support cancer units by providing services, including radiotherapy, not available in smaller hospitals.
I am glad to say that detailed guidance for health authorities will be issued shortly by the Department of Health on the implementation of the cancer strategic framework, building on the substantial work already in hand in the NHS. That will include recent evidence, where available, on the benefits of specialisation in cancer sites.
Simultaneously, to support work that is being taken forward regionally, the NHS executive has commissioned work to prepare evidence-based guidance in a rolling programme of work starting with the commoner cancers. That work is being done by a sub-group of the Department of Health's clinical outcomes group. The sub-group is multidisciplinary and chaired by the professor of cancer studies at Leeds university.
Palliative care is equally important in many respects. Since 1990–91, we have provided specific extra funding for specialist palliative care services. By 1994–95, that funding had increased sixfold, from £8 million to £48 million, the last year in which it was separately identified; it is now built into health authorities' allocations.
I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Bristol, South about the Bristol oncology centre. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is an acknowledged centre of excellence in oncology and cancer. Over the years, clinical audit and clinical trials have been carried out so that treatment protocols are highly defined to be the best for the patient and the most efficient available. The centre holds the renowned ISO 9002 international award.
The number of treatments carried out at the centre has increased dramatically in recent months. Since 1993–94, radiotherapy treatments have increased by almost 25 per cent, and chemotherapy treatments rose by 47 per cent. in the period to Christmas last year compared with the same period in 1994. Avon referrals to the centre averaged 159 per month in the eight months to December last year. In January this year, that figure rose to 203. Inevitably, the pressure caused by increasing demand brings problems.
I am pleased to note that in March 1996, a new information resource room will open at the oncology centre. It will provide patients and their families with much-needed information about treatment, self-help groups and welfare benefits. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that.
Resources are finite and can never be otherwise. Unfortunately, we shall never have sufficient money to do all that we would like to in a perfect way. Nevertheless, there is no question of Avon patients who require palliative care being refused treatment. Patients who are not treated at the centre receive palliative care in the community through their GPs, district nurses or at St. Peter's hospice, with appropriate support and advice from the palliative care team at the oncology centre. I accept that that is not ideal in many cases.
I shall now reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I am assured by the trust and Avon health authority that intensive discussions on funding are continuing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health mentioned that in the remarks that she said that he had made. I have asked South and West regional health authority to monitor closely the discussions between the trust and the health authority and report back to me personally about their nature and outcome. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased to hear that. We will monitor them closely and hope to achieve a reasonable outcome to those continuing discussions.
Finally, in the last two minutes, I come to financing.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: About time.

Mr. Horam: I have mentioned it already and said that we consider the matter daily. It is being monitored closely and the outcome of the discussions will be reported to me directly. I do not see how I could say any more than that on the issue.
On funding, the hon. Member for Bristol, South did not mention that Avon Health's planned allocation for next year is £337.3 million, a cash increase of £10.6 million, a substantial increase, and an increase in real terms.

Ms Primarolo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Horam: It is a substantial increase; £10.6 million is a substantial increase by any reckoning, on what is already a very large figure.
Moreover, contrary to the impression that the hon. Lady sought—at length—to give, according to our methods of calculation Avon is ahead of its target: it is receiving more than it is strictly entitled to receive. In such circumstances, the "market factor" is irrelevant. As for the allocation of money, any sensible Department—such as ours—will always keep the position under review. If sensible evidence suggests that we should alter it, we shall seek to do so.

Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: Not now. I want to make my point very forcefully.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No more points can be made now; we must move to the next debate.

Ms Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that Avon had received an increase of £10.6 million. On 2 February, he wrote to me saying that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not raising a point of order; she is raising a point of debate, which cannot be dealt with as a point of order. We must now move to the next debate.

Casinos, Bingo and Sunday Dancing

Mr. David Atkinson: Let me begin by declaring a non-interest. I have no interest in gambling. I have never bet or played bingo, and I am one of the 6 million people left in the country who have yet to play the national lottery. Only an occasional premium bond win keeps me going.
I do, however, declare a constituency interest. Although Bournemouth is one of our most successful tourist resorts, it needs to keep abreast of the competition and respond to the demands of visitors if it is to continue to succeed. That is also in the national interest, as it would enable the country to retain its place in the league table of countries visited by tourists. Sadly, however, it is not currently managing to do so: although the number of tourists continues to rise, our share in that hugely increasing world market is slipping as more and more countries open up to tourists at affordable prices. 
Great Britain plc can no longer afford to operate restrictive practices and archaic laws in response to attitudes that are neither popular nor necessary. That applies no less to its leisure and entertainments industry than to any other. Three aspects to be found in my constituency supply the main argument in favour of deregulation: casinos, bingo clubs and public dancing. 
I planned today's debate some weeks ago. I presume—as I am not a betting man, I did not even compute the odds—that it is pure chance that my striking lucky in the ballot coincided not only with the opening of Martin Scorsese's new film "Casino", but, more important, with the publication yesterday of the Department's consultation paper on casinos and bingo clubs. As that Green Paper correctly anticipated much of what I intended to say today, I have had to revise my speech somewhat.
Let me explain what led me to choose this topic. I had represented my constituency for more than 10 years before I ventured into one of its casinos—the Bournemouth casino club at the Royal Bath hotel. I note from the most recent edition of The Sunday Times that, until recently, my hon. Friend the Minister exhibited the same reticence.
Although, as I have stressed, this is not my scene, I was impressed by the quality of the establishment, the dining facilities for members, and the quiet professionalism that was evident in the conduct of the games. Today it is known as the Grosvenor; it is one of three casinos in Bournemouth. Last month, I visited the most recently established, the Stakis Regency casino, and was equally impressed—not least by the surveillance and security systems that had been introduced to detect cheating and fraud.
On both those occasions, I was appalled by the pettiness of the restrictions placed on casinos. Those restrictions clearly prevent them from realising their commercial potential. Not only are they unable to respond to the obvious change in public attitudes to such places of entertainment in recent years; they cannot make the contribution that they could otherwise make to the local economy and jobs, as well as to the Exchequer. We continue to deny ourselves that contribution as long as we turn away customers from both home and abroad by maintaining the current restrictions.
Any reasonably open-minded person would surely agree that some of those restrictions are now unnecessary. The most obvious is the 48-hour rule. Under the present law, no one can enter a casino for the first time—except as the guest of a member—without a "cooling-off' period of 48 hours. Any prospective customer must complete a membership form on the premises, and then wait two days before being admitted to game. In practical terms, that makes it impossible to play on a weekend away. It also means that the country is turning away foreign tourists and business men in droves.
Such restrictions apply in no other country where gaming is legal. They are unquestionably a drag on Britain's foreign earnings, and on employment in the casino industry. When a player has joined one casino, he cannot enter another without repeating the whole peculiar process, even if he is already eligible to play in another casino owned by the same company. Why should British casinos—while remaining clubs—not be allowed to judge for themselves whether a potential customer is acceptable for registration on completion of the required application forms, and admit that customer without delay?
There is also a ban on advertising of any kind, apart from limited information outside the casino itself. Even listings in trade and telephone directories are prohibited other than for recruitment purposes. Casinos cannot even advertise in British Airways' High Life magazine. The Stakis hotel in my constituency cannot even advertise in its brochure the fact that a casino is attached to it.
I accept that there is a case against wholesale deregulation—allowing, for instance, broadcast advertising. Surely, however, it is reasonable to publish information about casinos—perhaps in a prescribed form—in tourist magazines, classified advertisements in regional newspapers and directories such as Yellow Pages and notices at United Kingdom points of entry and in hotels. At present, many foreign visitors are unaware that casinos exist in Britain, while the short-stay business man who finds one for the first time is then confronted with the 48-hour rule.
Casinos are allowed just two jackpot gaming machines, as are local golf clubs. The stake permitted is 20p, and the maximum prize is £250. Given those controls, there is certainly no risk of Las Vegas-style gambling—slot machines are the biggest earner per square foot in America—coming to the United Kingdom.
Casino customers are not allowed to pay by credit card or a direct debit card such as Switch. That cannot be realistic today. Are we seriously encouraging people to carry around large amounts of cash? If modern payment methods such as charge and credit cards were an acceptable currency in casinos, not only would less cash be required, but the probability that cheques will be supplanted in the not too distant future would be pre-empted. Gaming would also be made easier for foreign tourists.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Atkinson: I would rather not. My time is limited, and I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister enough time in which to reply.
Those are the principal reforms that have been suggested to the Minister by the British Casino Association. They would bring the British industry into line with other countries, and, I suspect, with British public opinion. I do not want to pre-empt my hon. Friend's response, in which he will doubtless refer to the proposals in yesterday's Green Paper. I give a warm welcome to those initiatives, especially the proposal to extend permitted drinking beyond midnight and the proposal to allow casinos in 13 new towns. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to more.
I express reservations on three of the proposals. First, I refer to the reduction in the waiting period for new members to play from 48 hours to 24 hours. The casino industry will be disappointed that a waiting period will still apply to people who want to go into a casino. Is there not a case for a hotel with a casino attached—particularly those as prestigious as the Royal Bath hotel and the Stakis hotel in Bournemouth—to offer immediate membership to its residents? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether, with postal applications now proposed, those residents who make their reservations in advance could be given automatic membership if they so wish, and therefore be able to play immediately?
Secondly, the Green Paper justifies the continued prohibition of live entertainment to prevent the stimulation of demand for casino gambling—this rule applies even to the extent of prohibiting a pianist. I find this argument unconvincing and rather pathetic, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again.
Thirdly, I regret the negative thinking towards resort casinos that are regarded in the Green Paper as impractical for this country because it is geographically small and densely populated. This approach, if pursued by the Government, will undoubtedly lead to what I feared in my opening remarks: Britain will continue to miss valuable opportunities for inward investment in favour of other countries with which we are in stiff competition.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of current American-Arab interests in establishing a multi-billion dollar casino, leisure and entertainment complex in this country. This would provide a massive and permanent boost to the economy of the area in which it would be located. The name of the consortium concerned is E-GATE, which is distinct from any similar rumours linked with the New York property magnate, Donald Trump. It would be a tragedy if we were to scare off this kind of investment, just as we did when Disney originally showed an interest in establishing EuroDisney here, before it was bribed to Paris, to be followed by Universal Studios.
Britain cannot afford to lose that sort of business, which would create new jobs and enhance tourism. We should not let it go to Europe just because it involves casinos. Gone are the days of organised crime, which justified the Gaming Act 1968. Even Las Vegas is cleaning up its act in response to demands for family-related entertainment, which Disney so successfully pioneered.
I turn now from big spenders to bingo players. There is no doubt of the continuing pleasure that this softest form of gaming provides to a great many of my constituents and to visitors to Bournemouth, as it does within a lively sociable environment at modern venues all over the country. Long gone are the days of old ladies in hairnets, looking like Ena Sharpies and Minnie Caldwell, playing on seaside piers for tacky prizes.
In November 1994, the levels of bingo admission and spending were increasing, but today—with the introduction of the national lottery and the abundance of scratchcards—the industry is in decline, with 56 clubs having closed and with the loss of over 1,500 jobs. That is why the Bingo Association of Great Britain is disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reduce bingo duty as he did with the general betting duty and the pools duty in his last Budget. Its members are now urging the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to come forward with reforms that will end the petty rules that restrict the activities of bingo and its customers.
For example, I refer to the 24-hour rule—the period between joining a club and being eligible to play; the restrictions that prevent clubs from advertising their social facilities and their prize money in the press, on radio or on television; and the regulations that determine the timing of games, the amount that operators can charge and the number of jackpot machines allowed—only two. The Bingo Association is seeking other changes, such as the end to the limit of added prize money, the extension of a bingo licence to three years, and the introduction of new games.
I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to these demands in their Green Paper—the industry has also responded positively. There are only three points that I want to pursue with my hon. Friend.
First, no reference is made in the Green Paper to enabling rollovers, to which—in view of the national lottery's experience—there can no longer be any objection. Secondly, while technically there appears to be no limit on the number of amusement-with-prizes machines—that is, fruit machines—the experience is that the licensing authorities behave otherwise. Will my hon. Friend clarify the rules on this point, and perhaps consider issuing clear guidelines for licensing authorities? Thirdly, surely the rule that fruit machines and jackpot machines cannot be mixed is unnecessarily restrictive.
I conclude with a plea on behalf of the nightclub industry to allow public dancing on Sundays. I corresponded with my hon. Friend in this regard last month in response to the representations I had received from the Zoo and Cage discotheque in my constituency. It expressed disappointment that the Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords recommended against allowing public dancing on a Sunday.
With respect, on which planet do their Lordships live? I can understand that some of them may not wish to go dancing in public on a Sunday, or at any other time, but surely they can accept that others do. There can no longer be any justification to maintain a law that is 200 years old and that has already been changed to allow drinking, gambling, sporting events and shopping on Sundays.
It seems extraordinary that pubs today can open their doors to trade on Sunday evenings, but nightclubs cannot. The Scots—who appear to me to be more Sunday-fearing than the English—have allowed public dancing on Sundays for almost 20 years. Why should the English be treated any differently? Of course, Sunday opening would remain subject to a local licence, and after consultation with the local neighbourhood to ensure its protection from nuisance and noise.
I hope that my hon. Friend will respond positively to all three of the appeals that I am making to him today, and will continue the excellent work of the Government

to eliminate all unnecessary restrictions, regulations and red tape in the way of people enjoying themselves according to their own judgment instead of that of others.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in introducing this debate. I listened with great interest to what he had to say. We have had many discussions on this theme. The fact that this debate is taking place today is timely, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in this area. I am glad of the opportunity to inform hon. Members of the proposals we wish to bring forward to relax unnecessary restrictions on gaming establishments.
Yesterday, we published our long-awaited consultation paper on these matters. I regard this as an important initiative, so much so that I have sent a copy to every Member of Parliament. Not every hon. Member has a casino in his constituency, but many have bingo clubs. In any case, I suspect that there will be widespread interest in the proposals for additional casinos, with 13 new permitted areas around the country, including places such as Croydon and Peterborough.
I shall explain the background to the consultation paper. We have heard much about the national lottery—which has had an impact on other forms of gambling—but we are not introducing these measures as a knee-jerk reaction to it. This exercise has been developed as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, and each proposal has been considered carefully on its own merits. I acknowledge that it has been long in coming, but it was important to consider carefully a balanced package for reform that would remove unnecessary restrictions on the industry and on the consumer while ensuring that necessary protections remain in force.
Although I am the first to commend the casino and bingo industries for their high standards and professionalism, we should remember that they are not just like any other business, and that there is a need for certain restrictions in the public interest.
We must keep out any criminal involvement and money laundering. Even bingo, which I agree with my hon. Friend is very much at the softer end of the gambling spectrum and provides harmless pleasure to thousands of people, has to remain subject to some controls. Without those controls, players could be exploited and fraud become rife.
Within the framework of controls, however, I entirely agree that there is scope for removal of restrictions that no longer have a place in the 1990s. In my view, our proposals reflect a rather different view of gambling from that which existed in the 1960s, when the Gaming Act 1968 was passed. It is not altogether surprising that the 1968 Act represents a cautious approach to gaming. After all, the 1960s had seen an explosion of casinos in this country, with, unfortunately, the involvement of crime and other unacceptable developments. Something had to be done quickly, and that something was the 1968 Act. It produced an immediate cleaning-up of the gaming scene.
Given that background, it is not altogether surprising that the message that appears to emerge from the Act's many pages is that gaming is a rather undesirable pastime, which should be restricted as far as is reasonably possible.
Our approach in the consultation document has been rather different. It has been to start from the point of view that people should be free to game if that is what they wish to do, and that restrictions should be applied only if they serve one of three essential purposes: that they prevent the encouragement of crime, public disorder or nuisance; that they ensure that punters get a fair deal and are made fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for when they game; and that they discourage socially damaging excesses.
My hon. Friend referred to some of the proposals. For the sake of completeness, I should like briefly to outline them. Following the consultation period, which ends on 31 May, we hope to lay a series of deregulation orders, with careful scrutiny by the appropriate Committees.
We propose to introduce secondary legislation to allow casinos in 13 new locations. The additional areas proposed are Croydon, Dartford, Gloucester, Folkestone, Hastings, Ipswich, Morecambe, Oxford, Peterborough, Redbridge, Slough, Swindon and Weymouth. A reduction in the 48-hour waiting time for membership of a casino to 24 hours, together with provision for postal applications and group membership is also involved, as well as a new regime for gaming machines, with increased numbers and higher stakes and pay-outs; an extension to liquor licensing hours; and allowing the advertising of the location of casinos in directories and guides. Yes, that will be allowed, if required, appropriate and requested, even in High Life magazine, to which my hon. Friend referred. We also intend to permit payment by debit card.
The proposals on bingo are: an end to the requirement that bingo establishments operate as members' clubs with a 24-hour waiting period for membership; abolition of the demand criterion for the granting of licences; removal of restrictions on added prize money and on frequency and prizes in multiple bingo, the national game; payment by debit card; extension of bingo licences from one year to three years, to which my hon. Friend referred; and removal of the remaining restrictions on print advertising.
I must comment on some of the more important aspects. First, on advertising, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions on bingo advertising are unnecessary. From our standpoint now, it is clear that the Bingo Act 1992 did not go far enough. The approach taken then was, perhaps, understandable, in that we hesitated to go from a complete ban to complete freedom. But it is clear that we do not need the restrictions, and I hope that one of the first measures to be produced following the consultation will remove restrictions on the advertising of bingo.
I should point out that I am also contemplating lifting the ban on broadcast advertising of bingo. I accept that that may stimulate some debate, but the national lottery and the football pools are already advertised on television. How far should we extend that to other forms of commercial gambling? We have taken a cautious approach to that powerful medium. There are concerns about the messages that we are sending out, particularly in respect of the young. Our view is that the harder forms of gambling should not have access to the broadcast media, however. Indeed, I understand that neither the casino nor the betting industry is looking for such freedom.
On casino advertising, I entirely agree that reform is overdue. We cannot continue with a complete ban on advertising of any sort. We should allow casinos to give out information about location, and so on.
My hon. Friend questioned our plans for the 48-hour rule for casinos. It is easy to mock the 24-hour waiting period for bingo membership, or to challenge the 48-hour period for casinos. However, the matter is not as straightforward as it might first appear.
We certainly agree that there is no social policy need to retain a waiting period before someone can play bingo, which is why we are suggesting that it should be removed. But that could have consequences for the way in which bingo clubs are run in respect of such matters as club status, liquor licences and gaming machines. The industry will obviously have to consider the implications carefully when it responds to us and to our consultation document.
We think it right that casinos should continue as clubs, and not become gaming houses open to the public in the same way as nightclubs. I recognise that no other country has a waiting period, but it should be borne in mind that the framework for casino gaming is very different in this country. Most other jurisdictions have casinos only in resort areas. Here, there are casinos in every major city, providing a facility for local residents. If we were to remove restrictions on membership, allow unlimited advertising and slot machines with massive pay-outs, we could see a boom in hard gambling in this country and a commensurate increase in problem gambling. We are not in that game.
I do understand the concerns of casinos, however, especially those in London, which cater primarily for tourists. We have proposed sensible relaxations in the rule, which would make it easier for casinos to admit tourists, while maintaining their status as clubs. I am the first to recognise the importance of the tourist industry to this country, to my hon. Friend's constituency, to London and to other parts of the nation.
I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me about the proposal to allow postal applications for casino membership, because the importance of that proposal should not be overlooked. We envisage that the 24-hour waiting period will commence from receipt of a postal application, whether from abroad or within this country. Given that clubs will need a little time to make checks and process the applications, that will mean that the 24-hour waiting period will not be a hindrance when the postal application route is used.
My hon. Friend referred to resort casinos. Great Britain is unusual in having an extensive network of 119 casinos covering all the main population centres, which is many more than in most other countries. Resort casinos would be very different. They would need heavy advertising, free access by the public instead of club status, and much more intensive regulation. They are more suitable for countries that have only a small number of casinos each serving a large region.
We do not think that the two types of casino could easily co-exist within a geographically small and densely populated area such as Great Britain. We think it better to concentrate on updating and improving the existing regulatory approach, which has been so successful, and has resulted in a gaming industry that, we are proud to say, is crime-free.
My hon. Friend also referred to live entertainment in casinos. The objectives of the prohibition on live entertainment are to prevent casinos from stimulating demand for their facilities in that way and to prevent other premises, such as nightclubs, from offering gaming facilities as an incidental feature. We looked into that prohibition, but concluded that its objectives were still valuable in maintaining the effective regulation of the industry. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I will certainly bear in mind his comments on that aspect when I consider the responses to the consultation paper.
We have allowed three months for consultation. After that, we hope to introduce a series of deregulation orders, as I said, for scrutiny by the Deregulation Committees. Although I cannot be specific on the timetable, I intend to ensure that that takes place as quickly as possible. Certainly the removal of bingo and betting advertising restrictions is high on the agenda.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the law on Sunday dancing. The existing law prevents operators from charging admission and from serving alcohol beyond the normal permitted hours on Sundays. In June 1995, a draft measure was put before the Deregulation Committees of both Houses. The Committees took the view that there had been insufficient time for consultation. They had other concerns about the extent to which the requirements

for retention of necessary protection had been met. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, in another place, also concluded that Sunday dancing was not an appropriate subject for deregulation.
The Government have taken note of those views, and especially of the view that amending the law on Sunday dancing is not suitable for the deregulation order procedure. If that route is not available, the reform could be brought about only by means of primary legislation. In the Government's view, that change would be suitable for a private Member's Bill, but I am afraid to say that no hon. Member has so far elected to take up the subject.
The Government remain committed to the principle behind the reforms, which would achieve an important loosening of centrally prescribed controls over the way in which individuals choose to spend their leisure time. We shall continue to seek a suitable opportunity for legislation. We believe that the process that we have undertaken is important. We look forward to the responses to our document, and I look forward to the responses that I am sure my hon. Friend will be making. Once more, I congratulate him on raising this subject.

It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Inward Investment

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into Scotland in 1995–96. [15784]

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures on inward investment to Scotland. [15794]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Scotland continues to be a magnet for inward investment. In the current financial year, we expect an additional £1 billion or thereabouts of inward investment.

Mr. Evans: As a Welshman representing an English constituency and asking about Scottish affairs, I believe in the welfare of the Union and in inward investment for Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to introduce the job-destroying social chapter and the minimum wage, that would be damaging to Scotland? Does he also agree that the final slap and insult to the people of Scotland would be the introduction of a tartan tax which would cost every Scottish family £6 a week?

Mr. Forsyth: Labour's proposals for a European jobs tax by joining the social chapter and for a minimum wage would be bad news for inward investment in Wales and Scotland, but the tartan tax in Scotland would give Wales an enormous advantage in attracting inward investment.

Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what would happen to business investment in Scotland if local authorities were able to set business rates? Rather than being pegged at around the rate of inflation—3 per cent.—as they are now, would not they go up to 30 per cent., which is the rate that many local authorities have threatened to introduce? That would be an additional tartan tax, because if income tax were put up by 3p in the pound, it would be logical to put up corporation tax by the same amount. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not care about the jobs of Scottish workers.

Mr. Forsyth: From memory, the Government have committed something like £0.5 billion to achieve a uniform business rate in Scotland to remove the competitive disadvantage that Scotland had. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party's proposals, which were published this week—to allow local authorities to raid the Scottish business community to meet its funding proposals—would be a disaster for Scotland's businesses. It would make Scotland less attractive to inward investors and destroy jobs and businesses in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will take the first opportunity to distance himself from that ridiculous proposal, which flies in the face of all the advice that we have had from the Scottish business community.

Mr. Norman Hogg: How does the Secretary of State reconcile what he has just said with his proposals to

destroy Scottish local government as an effective mechanism which provides the infrastructure on which inward investment is built? He is setting financial limits on local government in a way that will destroy its ability to provide the base for inward investment.

Mr. Forsyth: No, that is not the case. Local authorities in Scotland are getting grant that is nearly 45 per cent. more per head than it is in England, and 21 per cent. higher per head than it is in Wales. It is a generous settlement, and it is more than local authorities would be entitled to under the Barnett formula to which the hon. Member for Hamilton has committed himself as the basis for funding Scottish local government and other services in the Scottish block. I found an extra £26.5 million over and above the formula consequences for local government in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman were fair minded, he would recognise that. As he is fair minded, I am sure that he does.

Mr. Canavan: While I welcome inward investment, does the Secretary of State admit that the number of jobs created by it is not enough to replace the jobs lost through companies closing down or leaving Scotland? Bearing it in mind that the Government are always quick to take the credit when companies come to Scotland, but not so quick to take responsibility when companies threaten to leave, will the Secretary of State applaud the Cummins work force who yesterday voted overwhelmingly to fight the proposed closure of the Shotts factory? Will the Secretary of State follow that excellent example by intervening and trying to use every means at his disposal to save the 700 jobs?

Mr. Forsyth: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Nicholls: I must remind my right hon. Friend that, when one examines Government inward investment in Scotland and the subsidy for the tourism industry as represented by subsidy for the English and Scottish tourist boards, one sees that Scotland receives from the Government about 16 times as much subsidy as England. If we combine that with the fact that the Scottish Office is now subsidising sewerage charges for people in Scotland, from a west country perspective it looks a pretty poor do. Is not it time that we started to spend money on people who used to vote for us at the expense of those who never would?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but he is quite wrong about what he described as a subsidy for water and sewerage. It is a simple transfer from local government. As my hon. Friend knows, water has not been privatised in Scotland and we have no intention of privatising water in Scotland. Because it has not been privatised, it is necessary for the taxpayer to meet the costs which in England are met by the private sector.

Mr. Salmond: Nothing can do as much damage to the Secretary of State for Scotland as Tory Back Benchers. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in a conversation with a senior executive connected with inward investment in Scotland, I was told that, over the past 10 years, only one firm out of hundreds had expressed any concern about constitutional change in Scotland, but that up to one third of those hundreds of companies had expressed concern


about the Government's hostile attitude to the European Union? As the biggest little Englander in the Cabinet, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his hostile attitudes towards Europe are a real threat to inward investment in Scotland and to thousands of Scottish jobs?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not hostile to Europe, but I am hostile to the sort of Europe that the hon. Gentleman would like to see, which would add to business costs and drive out inward investment. The hon. Gentleman pretends to be a nationalist who wants Scotland to have a greater say over its affairs, yet his policy on Europe would transfer power to Brussels where the people would be unable to have a proper say.

Mr. Stephen: How can I justify to my constituents in Sussex the fact that central Government spend so much more on local authority services in Scotland than in England?

Mr. Forsyth: The allocations for Scottish local government are a matter for the Secretary of State and the priorities have to be set within the Scottish Office block. The Scottish Office block has provided for a generous allocation towards local government, in part reflecting the changes that local government is undergoing as a result of reorganisation.
My hon. Friend asked about the additional benefits that Scotland enjoys under the Scottish Office block, which mean that public expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is getting on for one third higher per head than it is in England. That relationship would undoubtedly be undermined if a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers was established, because that would mean for the hon. Member for Hamilton a reduced number of Scottish Members of Parliament—according to the Liberal Democrats—and no Scottish Office presence in Cabinet, to decide the allocation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out in the Grand Committee, that would undoubtedly result in Scotland being disadvantaged and the difference between expenditure in England and Scotland being narrowed. That is the price that Opposition Members are prepared to make the Scottish people pay for their Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success of inward investment depends on the skill and confidence of the Scottish people? If, by a combination of skill and confidence, Scotland triumphs at Murrayfield on Saturday, will that not do much more for inward investment than any of the Government's policies?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that, when Scotland triumphs at Murrayfield on Saturday, we shall at last have found something on which all parties in the House can agree in so far as they represent Scottish constituencies.
On skills, the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that Scottish Enterprise has taken a 7.5 per cent. reduction in its budget but remains determined to deliver the same output in terms of training. That is the money that we have made available as extra money to local government. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways: criticising both the settlement for local government and the reduction in Scottish Enterprise funding, as he did when it was announced.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Labour party welcomes inward investors

to Scotland and that the next Labour Government, who most inward investors assume will be taking power in the next 15 months, will also warmly welcome inward investment to Scotland? Just in case he starts to believe his own propaganda, will he listen to the words of Professor Neil Hood, the former director of Locate in Scotland, who said that he did not think that any inward investment would be frightened off by the current proposals for devolution? Surely that alone shows the bogus and empty nature of the propaganda that continues to be thrown by Conservative Members.

Mr. Forsyth: I do more than listen to his words. I have met him and discussed his ideas, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is not on such strong ground as he believes. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that an extra 10 per cent. on income tax in Scotland and additional costs on employing people will not put Scotland at a disadvantage compared with Wales and the north-east of England, he is not living in the real world.
Let us take as an example financial services, which are an important employer in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is saying that savings income for pensioners would be taxed at 15 per cent. more in Scotland than in England. Savings institutions depend on savings income, and the hon. Gentleman's proposals for a tartan tax do not threaten just inward investment, but established industries such as the financial services sector, because they add to their costs and make them less competitive.

Local Authority Budgets

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the leaders of (a) Glasgow and (b) other local authorities to discuss their budgets. [15785]

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends meeting the leader of Glasgow city council to discuss its 1996–97 budget. [15786]

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had on the finances of the new unitary local authorities. [15793]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Over the past two days, I have met many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) with a delegation from Glasgow and a delegation led by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am always pleased to meet delegations led by hon. Members.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister tell us, following that meeting, whether the people of Glasgow will continue to face cuts of £1.3 million every week? Does he think it acceptable that they face a council tax increase of 36 per cent? If, to judge from the Secretary of State's remarks earlier, he really thinks that the settlement is fair, why are people paying more and getting far less?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady does not—unfortunately—understand the figures for Glasgow. Within its capping limit, Glasgow could increase expenditure by some 4.93 per cent. from the notional budget provided by Strathclyde regional council for the former district. The hon. Lady might like also


to contemplate whether she can justify the £500,000 that was spent on the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I should have thought that the people of Glasgow would rather that it was spent on services for themselves.

Mr. Watson: If the Minister had any sense of contrition, he would not have the nerve to show his face in the House because, although his predecessors told us that the reorganisation of local authorities in Scotland would cost about £30 million, we find that the real figure is more than £400 million. I would not mind that if the Scottish Office would pick up the bill, but it will not—the people of Scotland are being asked to do that.
On the specific question about Glasgow, will the Minister apologise to the hundreds of local authority workers in the city who are likely to lose their jobs and to the thousands of people who are likely to have their services cut, including the 113 members of the ethnic community project at the Dixon centre in my constituency? Why should such people have to suffer and pay for the incompetence and deception of the Minister and the Government?

Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the funding given to Glasgow by central Government is 82 per cent. higher per head of population than the average south of the border? If he devoted more attention to recognising the excess that we give local government in Scotland and addressed the fact that he and his hon. Friends are calling for the ridiculous sum of £395 million on top of that for local government, perhaps he would be able to tell us where he expects us to take the money from. Does he, like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), want us to take it from the health budget?

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister calm down before he does his health some serious damage? [Interruption.] I know that I should be encouraging him.
Having heard this morning the powerful case put by Councillor Margaret Smith, the convener-elect, Douglas Patterson, the chief executive, and Gordon Edwards, the finance director—all from Aberdeen city council—does the hon. Gentleman now understand the serious difficulties for local authorities? Does he accept that his figures are wrong and that the people of Aberdeen will suffer severely from a cut of £26.5 million? Does he realise that such a cut will affect every citizen and every sector in the city, not least the private sector, which benefits greatly from local authority spending? Will the Minister calm down now, consider the problem seriously and produce a more realistic settlement?

Mr. Kynoch: If I am not perfectly calm it is because I am incensed at the proposal by the hon. Member for Dundee, East that we should take money from health, because we believe in making real increases in the health budget.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did indeed bring me a delegation from Aberdeen city this morning. I listened carefully to what they all said, and I commend the city for the moves by which it is clearly trying to bring its budget within the capping limits. The hon. Gentleman should be more honest in recognising, as the chief executive did, the situation that Aberdeen city inherited

from Grampian region—savings were not made over the past few years, and reserves were eaten up. That inheritance has been passed to Aberdeen city, and the city must lie in the bed that the former region made for it.

Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend pay serious attention to the sensible views of people such as Bailie John Young, who said that Glasgow had been overspending for years? Does he agree with many of my constituents, who are seriously concerned about the fact that the Labour group that runs East Renfrewshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Just wait for it. Does my hon. Friend share our concern about the fact that, under the mismatch agreement, the Labour group has passed over £5.6 million of East Renfrewshire's money to the City of Glasgow?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The skewing that occurred in the past is becoming apparent because of the grant-aided expenditure allocation for the new areas. Bailie John Young was in a delegation brought to me by the hon. Member for Springburn this morning, and he agreed with me that some of the excesses of the past had caused Glasgow's present problems. However, I hope that, in the short time still available, the councillors of the new Glasgow city council will recognise the need to look afresh at the way in which they deliver services and ensure that the greatest efficiency is achieved so that they can make the savings that will enable them to set a sensible council tax increase for the people of Glasgow.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend will be aware that housing forms a fairly significant part of local authority spending in Glasgow. In addition, central Government supply considerable funds through Scottish Homes for expenditure in Glasgow. Is he aware of the £8 million that Scottish Homes has pledged to spend on ethnic housing in Glasgow? Is that not wrong? Should not such money be spread across the population, irrespective of colour, religion or creed?

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I understand that the decision was taken by Scottish Homes and it is a decision for it to take.

Mr. Ernie Ross: From his meeting this morning, the Minister will know that the new Dundee city council, despite making savage cuts to meet the capping level set by him, still faces introducing a council tax increase of 24 to 30 per cent. This morning, he could not tell us what else it could do. Can he tell us this afternoon?

Mr. Kynoch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative councillor Neil Powrie, who was quoted in the newspapers recently, has pointed the finger at the Labour council in Dundee—as did Bailie John Young in Glasgow—by saying that many of the council's problems have been brought about by years of ignoring the need for efficiency savings and delivery improvement.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister has considered the prospective council tax increases in authorities throughout Scotland. Has he noticed that, despite bitter resentment about cuts, the proposed increases in the islands authorities are between 3 and 5 per cent. compared with an average increase of


15 per cent. in Scottish mainland councils? Is it not clear that a large part, if not all, of the difference is attributable to what is increasingly called the Forsyth reorganisation tax?

Mr. Kynoch: That is hard on Shetland and Orkney islands councils, to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is referring. In a tight public expenditure round, those councils have dealt with the problems sensibly.

Mr. Wallace: They did not have reorganisation.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting that those councils did not have reorganisation. Reorganisation—taking two councils and merging them into one—has brought potential benefits to other councils. It should produce savings, which the hon. Gentleman has seen in the islands councils that he represents. I hope that he will be big enough to commend them for seemingly managing things much more efficiently than many other councils.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I thank the Minister for receiving a delegation today. He referred to the old councils. He must recognise that he and his colleagues set up the new councils and that a reorganised new council should not be burdened with the debts of the old one.
The Minister should be even-handed when he talks about the STUC conference, because Glasgow, I understand, gave £100,000 to the Tory party when it held its conference there.

Mr. Kynoch: On that last point, I am reliably informed that the figure is slightly lower, although I have no confirmation of that. Some £40,000 is the figure that has just been whispered in my ear.
On inheritance from old councils, I am not aware that the Government have suddenly introduced local government. They have been adamant that they want to streamline it and to make two tiers become one. In the past, Labour councillors have supposedly been accountable to the electorate. If they have, through total abuse, taken the matter into their own hands, used up reserves and handed a poisoned chalice to their successors, they, and not the Government, should be held accountable to the electorate.

Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister not aware of the genuine outrage and anger that exists all over Scotland at the Government-imposed service cuts or that the 40,000 people who marched through the streets of Edinburgh last Saturday showed that no one in Scotland believes the jiggery-pokery with figures that the Government are indulging in? Is it not a fact that, by reducing by more than £500 million central Government support to local authorities over the next three years, he will be responsible for putting the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax of all taxpayers in Scotland? Will not everyone in Scotland conclude that, under the Tories, people pay more and get less?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman does not accept the fact that, this year, we have put an extra £148 million into local government. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has come clean in the past few days about what he would do

with local government. He would lift capping, which means that council tax would go up even further. He would remove the uniform business rate from central Government and put it back with local authorities, thereby increasing costs for businesses, reducing their competitiveness and removing a level playing field. He would increase expenditure in local government. He has called for an extra £395 million for local government, but he has not said where it should come from. If the hon. Gentleman aspires ever to hold office, he should do his sums first and tell us where in the Scottish Office block we should find extra funding for local government on top of the significant increase that it has had.

Tree Planting

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to increase planting of native broadleaf trees. [15787]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We provide a wide range of advice and grants to encourage the planting of broadleaf trees and fully support initiatives such as the millennium forest and the national forest. As a result, the area of new broadleaf woodlands created each year has increased fifteenfold over the past 10 years.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful response. Does he recall the number of trees that were lost in Great Britain partly because of the hedgerow clearances of 20 to 30 years ago and partly because of Dutch elm disease? Will he redouble his efforts and consider a new initiative? I am thinking especially of a tree-planting year. For example, 1973 was the year of the tree. Will he consider the introduction of a similar campaign so that we may replace some of the trees that have been lost over the years?

Mr. Robertson: I remember the Plant a Tree '73 campaign because I was in my second year at secondary school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pledged full support for an initiative to create a millennium forest in Scotland. The first tree in the £11.5 million first phase of the project, which will eventually result in millions of trees of various species taking root across the country, was planted by my right hon. Friend at Castlebrae community high school at Craigmillar in Edinburgh with the help of local schoolchildren. The initial phase consists of 45 different woodland projects from Orkney to the Borders, with half the cost being met by the Millennium Commission using national lottery funds.

Mr. Galbraith: Surely the Minister realises that the type of tree that is planted is not the only forestry issue. Of much greater importance is access to the land. What can he do to ensure that, for the foreseeable future, guaranteed access to afforested land will be maintained?

Mr. Robertson: My noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay, who is the Minister responsible for these matters, has been widening access throughout Scotland, and every effort is being made to secure agreements that guarantee access for the public on foot. Following the forestry review, the Forestry Commission has been encouraging local


authorities to respond positively to its open access agreements, allowing them more time to consider the agreements and offering to meet their reasonable legal costs.

Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, while broadleaf trees add considerably to the countryside environment, they do not add a great deal to our forestry industries? The conifer has been much maligned in recent years, perhaps unfairly. The backbone of any successful forestry industry in Britain is the conifer. Will the Minister do all that he can to disabuse people of the belief that one can have a forestry industry based on hardwoods and try to get more conifers planted?

Mr. Robertson: Grants for new conifer planting were increased by nearly 30 per cent. on arable and improved land, and we expect the increased grants to give a major boost to conifer planting which, as my hon. Friend says, is important for investors in the wood-processing industry. There was an encouraging increase of almost 3,000 hectares in new conifer planting last year to about 9,000 hectares, 8,000 of which were in Scotland.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of Government policy on tree planting and other issues, the people of Glasgow feel that the Government have simply abandoned the city? Will he accept an invitation from Glasgow Members to spend a day touring the city to see for himself the problems that are caused by the twin evils of unemployment and poverty? If he comes, he will see the hundreds of acres of derelict land which can be improved only by tree planting, be they broadleaf or conifer.

Mr. Robertson: Yes.

European Grants

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since the fund's inception. [15788]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since 1975, £1.6 billion.

Sir David Knox: How does that compare with figures for other European countries?

Mr. Forsyth: There is a wide range—[HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."] I do know. It is about 10 times as much as Denmark and considerably less than Spain.

Mr. Kirkwood: May I ask the Secretary of State an easier supplementary question? Will he acknowledge the concern in south-east Scotland about on-going job losses in the textile industry? Does he welcome the local authority's initiative to set up a working party to try to stem the flow of job losses? Will he undertake to use his influence and that of his officials to make best use of the ERDF and objective b funding so that the local authority's efforts to try to sustain and promote knitwear jobs in the Borders are developed and promoted with vigour?

Mr. Forsyth: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have already done so, partly because of the representations that

he has made. I have asked Scottish Enterprise to look at the matter. He is right to point out the difficulties in the textile industry. We are considering carefully the European scheme called RETEX with a view to providing increased support. I agree that the Borders area has considerable scope for inward investment. It is often suggested that unemployment in the Borders is such that the area should not be a priority. I do not agree with that view. Many people are having to commute out of the Borders to find work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for industry is very much aware of the particular difficulties in the textile industry. I am sure that he and Scottish Enterprise will have moved things forward since I last raised the matter. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I shall certainly try to arrange a discussion soon to find out what progress has been made.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom pays much more into Europe in taxation than we get back? Therefore, whatever we receive from the European Union is United Kingdom money coming back. I would describe it as laundered and devalued.

Mr. Forsyth: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend up to his last phrase. It is certainly true that we are net contributors to the Community. There is no such thing as European money. It is our money coming back to us under a variety of schemes for which I have to make public expenditure provision in the Scottish Office block. It does not come from nowhere. We have to make provision for it in the Scottish Office block and, as such, it is given priority alongside other expenditure on health, education and so on. So my hon. Friend is right in that respect.
The money also comes back on the basis that it represents additional expenditure. In that respect, I think that my hon. Friend will join me in recognising the good work that has been done under various European social fund and ERDF schemes in helping to make Scotland competitive and helping communities—especially fragile communities—meet the needs of competitiveness and put in place the infrastructure services that they need to improve the quality of life for their local people.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister address the problems in areas that do not have access to European funding because they are not included in his Department's map of assisted areas? He will be aware that my constituency has just suffered 252 job losses at Lothian Electric Machines in Haddington because of the actions of IBM in that part of the world. He must surely recognise the urgent need to create new job opportunities in areas such as East Lothian. Will the Scottish Office review assisted areas boundaries?

Mr. Forsyth: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, such matters have to be agreed. Scotland receives a very generous allocation. As the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) made clear, we receive a very substantial share of ERDF funds, for example, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland has been below the UK average for almost four years. Having said that, I shall certainly look at the problems in his constituency as a result of IBM's decisions and ask


Scottish Enterprise to see whether further assistance can be provided. I cannot offer any prospect of redrawing the map, or getting agreement in Brussels for so doing given the good deal that we have at the present time.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), does he agree that one problem is that the Commission constantly insists on spreading the propaganda that it is the Commission's money going to various places across the United Kingdom, not least Scotland?
Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that no European flag appears on projects that have received any of that money? If that suggestion is beyond the pale, perhaps he will ensure that the Union Jack—whose size should be in direct proportion to the amount of money coming from the British taxpayer—is flown next to any European flag.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would allow me to substitute the saltire for the Union Jack. It used to be the case that the Commission was rather anxious—and would often make it a condition of support—that the European flag was flown to acknowledge the involvement of the Community. That is not something that the Government do when we provide support. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. I am always happy to fly the flag whenever there is an opportunity to do so.

Hospital Trusts

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the health service executive for Scotland to discuss standards of service in hospital trusts. [15789]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I have regular contact with officials of the national health service management executive. It is for health boards to monitor standards of service in hospitals through their contracts with trusts.

Mr. Connarty: Can we now expect an improvement in the standard of service at the Falkirk royal infirmary, with an end to the unsavoury political relationship between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Forth Valley health board with the welcome and timeous resignation of the chairman, Mrs. Iris Isbister? As the Secretary of State has arranged to kill off the messenger, can there now be a different message and an end to the bias against Falkirk royal infirmary, whose services have been centralised in Stirling, despite the recommendation in 1988 that centralisation should be in Falkirk?
Will the Minister start to act like a Minister responsible for health and arrange for the children's ward at Falkirk royal infirmary to be re-opened at least until the conclusions of the acute services review in 1997? Or will he look for somebody else's skirts to hide behind now that Mrs. Isbister has gone?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's comments are uncharacteristically petty. Mrs. Isbister has been a thoroughly dedicated chairman,

representing the best interests of the whole of the Forth Valley area. She has reduced waiting times and improved services. I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that paediatric staff are available at Falkirk royal infirmary on a 24-hour basis and are able to give a clinical evaluation and to stabilise children's conditions.
What has happened is that three paediatric consultants have retired, resulting in a temporary centralisation of services. The preferred option will be announced by the health board in due course, through consultation, and the matter will then come back to me for a decision. Throughout, the best interests of the children will be the paramount consideration.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind medical concerns. The British Paediatric Association said that
no consultant paediatrician should have to provide on-call cover for more than one acute paediatric unit.
The hon. Gentleman supports centralisation, but he wants it at a certain hospital. I have already told him that there is a temporary solution and that the final recommendation will come to me for a decision, after consultation.

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the number of doctors and nurses in the national health service in Scotland has increased substantially? Is not that meaningful and is my hon. Friend in a position to give the figures to the House?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1979, the number of hospital doctors has risen by 1,100. Indeed, the number of doctors has increased every year. There are also 7,000 more whole-time equivalent nurses, which has resulted in an improvement in care. We want waiting times to be reduced even further and we are determined to work to that end.

Dr. Godman: When the Minister's officials meet representatives of the executive, I hope that they will discuss the issue of the treatment that has been meted out to patients who have suffered because of clinical misjudgment or neglect. May I remind him that there are still women in the Inverclyde area who are seeking legal redress for the disgraceful treatment they received some years ago, as a direct result of the cervical smear programme scandal? Why does that relatively small number of women still have to suffer the indignity and humiliation of that interminably long legal process before they receive reasonable compensation? Why does not he do something about it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on a legal action once it is under consideration. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have instituted a new complaints procedure that should ensure that the patients—it is a small minority—who have legitimate complaints are dealt with quickly and effectively and that they can take the matter further if they do not receive a satisfactory response.

Industry

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the


Confederation of British Industry in Scotland in respect of (a) new investment in industry and (b) expansion of existing industry in Scotland. [15790]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: On the last occasion that I met with the CBI, we discussed a range of issues.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continual running down of Scotland and the Scottish economy by the Labour party does nothing to help our country? Does he further agree that the fact that ICI is investing £60 million in Dumfries and that Pinney' s is investing £6 million in Annan shows that the time is right for investment, and that those companies see that our economy is sound?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am delighted by Id's investment in Dumfries, which is very good news for the future, and by the investment and export achievements of businesses in Scotland. We are now exporting more per head than Japan, and about 40 per cent. more per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. Our manufacturing output and exports are up. That is a great success story, and yet Opposition Members talk about the decline of our manufacturing base and the run down of Scotland's economy. Scotland is a success story because of the success of our policies, and it is high time that Opposition Members admitted it.

Mr. McKelvey: When the Secretary of State spoke with the CBI, did he have the opportunity to describe the success of the all-party Scotch whisky group, which is headed by the Secretary of State, when it made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut the price of Scotch whisky, only to learn that the manufacturers have increased the price of Scotch whisky and wiped out that opportunity of a price reduction?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does a great deal on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry in Scotland, which is an important exporter with exports worth about £2 billion. He is right to point out that there has been a price increase, which has, more or less, had the effect of taking out the advantage of the reduction in duty provided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—who was the first Chancellor in 100 years to reduce the duty on whisky.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor pointed out the importance of the tax level to the Scotch whisky industry and to its competitiveness in export markets. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there has been a price increase in the domestic market, but the advantage and importance of the reduction of duty for the competitiveness of Scotch whisky in export markets remains. All has not been lost by the price increase. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares with Conservative Members the regret that we will have to pay more for our whisky in the domestic market than seemed to be the case after my right hon. and learned Friend made his reduction in duty.

Mrs. Adams: When the Secretary of State is talking about inward investment in Scotland, would he care to tell my constituents why, since his Government came to power, we have lost 85 per cent. of our manufacturing

jobs in the Paisley postcode area—that figure was provided by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—and why the Government have never put a special economic initiative into Renfrewshire, which has suffered death by a thousand cuts from the loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady proves the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). She is focusing on particular areas of difficulty, which is understandable, while not acknowledging the spectacular success in Scotland as a whole. If the hon. Lady would like to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), he would, I am sure, be delighted to talk to her about the possibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "A waste of time."] If the hon. Lady's attitude is that it would be a waste of time, she may recognise why Opposition Members are not aware of the spectacular successes that have been achieved by local enterprise companies throughout Scotland, not least in Renfrewshire, by getting out there, selling their areas and bringing in jobs. The hon. Lady should play a part in that.

Mr. McFall: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, will he discuss issues affecting industry, such as local government reorganisation? Is he concerned by this week's Fraser of Allander report which states that 15,000 local authority jobs could be lost in the short term? His belated attempts to save 700 jobs at Cummins, welcome as they are, will be dwarfed 20 times over by the job losses. Does he not realise that the name of Forsyth will be indelibly linked with the painful cuts and savage job losses being experienced by every community in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: People in local government deserve rather better than Opposition spokesmen who go round the country talking as the hon. Gentleman does. If he and his party are prepared to put up more money for local government and to commit themselves to that, they should say so. They should not go round the country pretending that they would provide money when they are not prepared to put up taxes and when they abstained in the vote on our tax cuts. When Labour Members are asked where the money would come from, they sit, if I may coin a phrase, like limpets on the Front Bench.

Unemployment

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest percentage figures for unemployment in Scotland; and what is the average for the EU. [15792]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment in Scotland is about 1.5 per cent. lower than the European average.

Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that non-wage labour costs in Scotland are 50 per cent. lower than those in France and Spain? Has he also noticed that in those two countries, unemployment is between 50 per cent. and 300 per cent. higher than it is in Scotland? Does he imagine that companies such as Chunghwa Picture


Tubes would have brought 3,300 jobs to Lanarkshire if the social chapter and the national minimum wage were imposed on Scotland as they are on France and Spain?

Mr. Forsyth: I quote a socialist, Jacques Delors, who said that Scotland and Britain would be a paradise for inward investment if we were allowed to opt out of the social chapter. Out of the mouth of a socialist, we have confirmation that the socialist policies of the social chapter, the minimum wage and the tartan tax, to which Opposition Members—I mean Members of all Opposition parties, not just the Labour party—are committed would indeed destroy inward investment.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the countries which follow those socialist policies have a poorer record on job creation and on the proportion of the work force in employment than this country. The price of the Opposition's policies will be paid in lost jobs by the people of Scotland if the Opposition are ever given an opportunity to put their policies into practice in central Government.

Mr. Donohoe: Just when will the Secretary of State concede that the only tartan tax there has ever been in Scotland was the poll tax, for which he was responsible?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the poll tax or community charge was introduced in Scotland a year ahead of its introduction in England. Labour Members campaigned strongly against that, arguing that it was an outrage that Scotland should have to pay a tax ahead of England. Yet the same Labour Members propose that Scotland should have to pay a tax year after year after year—a tartan tax and a tax on Scotland's jobs. That is Labour policy. Labour Members are now going round saying that the Conservative party is telling lies about the tartan tax.
Labour's partner in the constitutional convention, the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Liberal Democrat party."] I should have said, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He was on Scottish television only last Sunday committing himself to spending the tartan tax. Here we have it. One group of the partners denies that the tartan tax exists while the other group in the constitutional convention is busily spending the money even before a Scottish Parliament has been set up. A tartan tax would be a disaster for jobs in Scotland and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out how unfair it would be.

Mr. John Carlisle: This is the first time in 17 years as a Member of Parliament that I have attended Scottish Question Time, and it has been pretty depressing to hear the whingeing and whining from Opposition Members who are constantly asking for money and disparaging the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. May I tell my right hon. Friend that as a representative of a small company that is trying increase the number of jobs in our part of Scotland, we will continue our efforts despite the attitudes and policies espoused by the Opposition?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's commitment to creating jobs in Scotland. If he comes to Scottish Question Time regularly, he will find that it is something of an acquired taste.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that one of the big disincentives to creating employment

in my constituency is the chromium waste sites throughout Cambuslang and Rutherglen? He has referred to Scottish Enterprise. Could he explain to my constituents who will pay for the clearance of those sites, bearing in mind the so-called voluntary 7 per cent. cut in Scottish Enterprise's funds?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a reduction in Scottish Enterprise's budget means that the scope for additional expenditure is clearly limited. My complaint is not with the hon. Gentleman, but with his Front-Bench colleagues who attack us for reducing the Scottish Enterprise budget by 7.5 per cent., when Scottish Enterprise is prepared to maintain all services and outputs within that budget.

Mr. Connarty: It has cut the training budgets.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that Scottish Enterprise has cut the training budgets, but it is to maintain the levels of training. That is the kind of attitude that we want to see.

Mr. Connarty: That is impossible.

Mr. Forsyth: It is not impossible—it is about operating an efficient public service, and that is what Scottish Enterprise is doing. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) cannot argue for more money for local government—we have given local government £26.5 million extra, money which came from Scottish Enterprise—while complaining about a reduction in Scottish Enterprise's budget. He is complaining about priorities and, in this case, the money has gone to local government. On his particular point about dealing with land pollution, I will be happy to discuss that with Scottish Enterprise and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State understand that unemployment in Scotland is set to increase next year by a minimum of 4,500 as a direct result of the cuts that he is imposing on Scottish local government? He seems determined to destroy those jobs, as well as the many thousands of other jobs that depend upon locally provided services in Scotland. How can he come to the Dispatch Box and pose as the defender of employment in Scotland, when the truth is that he is the destroyer of jobs in Scotland? He is not so much the Secretary of State for Scotland as the Secretary of State for continuing and rising mass unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman got his knuckles rapped for suggesting that the £395 million of extra expenditure that he wants to go to local government could come from the health service. If we were to take £395 million out of the health service budget, some 15,000 nurses and doctors would be made redundant in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must get it into his head that the role of local government is to provide services, and not to provide employment. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that taking £395 million out of the Scottish Office budget would not result in job losses, he is living in a dream world. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that efficient local government is part of competitiveness, and competitiveness is essential to job creation in Scotland.

Special Education

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure continued funding for centres offering special education opportunities to children after local government reorganisation. [15795]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Each new council will take over the existing statutory duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of school education and will, like their predecessors, have substantial resources available for all aspects of that education.

Mrs. Michie: Is the Minister aware that a real threat hangs over the educational residential outdoor centres in my constituency, particularly Achnamara, Castle Toward and Caol Ruadh? If they close, 60 more jobs will be lost in Argyll and underprivileged, deprived children with special needs from Glasgow, Lanark, Renfrew and Ayrshire will not have access to such places. Will he give an undertaking that those excellent centres will not be sacrificed on the altar of so-called cost efficiency savings?

Mr. Robertson: We announced arrangements for the transfer of property from the existing local authorities to the new councils last September. There is no reason why a smooth transfer of the ownership of the outdoor centres should not go ahead. If the hon. Lady has any cause for real concern or particular problems that she would like to discuss with me, my door is open to her. The Property Commission has been established to resolve any disputes. Where authorities value the facilities provided, I do not see why new authorities could not or would not make the appropriate arrangements to share them. I am sure that they will want to ensure that children from their areas have the widest opportunity to participate in the stimulating environment that such centres have provided and, I believe, will continue to provide.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are some 300,000 surplus places in schools in Scotland? If so, is there not substantial room for reorganisation to provide a better service at a better price?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Accounts Commission identified some 300,000 surplus school places in Scotland. It qualified that by saying that once geographic, denominational and other factors were considered, the figure would be lower. However, there is substantial scope for serious rationalisation of school places in Scotland. I hope that the new authorities that will come into force on 1 April will take the opportunity to consider the issue sensibly and realistically while at all times involving the parents of the children concerned.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware of the concern that the special provision for Gaelic-medium education may be affected by local government reorganisation? When will the Government respond to the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate on Gaelic-medium education that came out two years ago? Will he undertake that payments under the specific grants scheme will continue to be made after reorganisation and into the foreseeable future?

Mr. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are wholly committed to Gaelic

education. I have had a series of meetings, as has my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for Gaelic language issues, with interested groups over the past few months. We are considering the HMI report on the future of Gaelic education and I hope to be able to announce positive recommendations in the near future. I can confirm that the specific grant for Gaelic education will continue and that next year it will be £1.9 million.

Mrs. Liddell: Will the Minister reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) because he has addressed only part of the problem? A significant problem for Scotland's new local authorities will arise from the provision of pre-five special needs education. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures for provision of special needs places suggest that it costs £16,214 to provide a pre-five place for a child with special needs; the nursery voucher is for £1,100. Who is to pay the difference: is it to be the parent or the local council? Will he explain why on 25 November, officials of South Lanarkshire council were told by Scottish Office officials that the private sector would not be expected to make pre-five special needs provision because it would be too costly and that local authorities would have to provide for those needs? Is the local council tax payer being asked to subsidise that vital service to protect private sector profits?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady should not write her questions before she comes into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was talking about not special educational needs but the future of outdoor centres in her constituency. The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) should know that the same funding mechanism for children with special educational needs will apply after 1 April. Where the fulfilment of their statutory duties to children with special educational needs requires the involvement of particular support services, the new authorities will be well placed to arrange it.

Residential Homes

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on registration and inspection procedures for nursing and residential homes. [15798]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A project is under way to produce national standards for the inspection and registration of nursing homes to assist health boards in the discharge of their statutory responsibilities. A Scottish Office working group is also reviewing registration and inspection procedures for residential homes, and will be reporting shortly.

Ms Squire: What specific action does the Minister intend, and what additional resources will he provide, to ensure that vigorous and effective inspection procedures have been established by 1 April, when the new councils come into effect? Will he encourage all councils and, indeed, health boards to follow Fife's example, and establish joint inspection units dealing with both residential and nursing homes?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office and health board general managers working groups are


considering the possibility of joint registration of establishments. We give guidance to local authorities, including guidance to enable them to fulfil responsibilities. As for resources, I am glad to report that more than £65 million has been allocated for spending on residential and nursing homes in 1996–97, and that an additional £39.5 million will be added to the DSS transfer to local authorities for the continuation of community care

responsibilities. The total is expected to be around £300 million, most of which is expected to be spent on the residential sector.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are dealt with after statements.

Millennium Exhibition

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House about the millennium exhibition.
The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, announced this morning its preference to hold an exhibition, based on the theme of time, on the Greenwich peninsula in the year 2000. Following consultation, the commission announced last year its aspirations for a national exhibition to provide the focus for the celebrations of the year 2000. The commission believed that there should be a single shared experience for the whole nation as we move into the 21st century, and that we should celebrate our achievements, abilities and potential as a nation.
The commission, with only grant-giving powers, needed to identify a location and an organisation capable of producing an event that would meet the commission's aspirations and justify the expenditure of lottery money. The commission therefore conducted two separate competitive processes, to identify the potential site and the potential operator. In January, it announced that it had decided not to proceed with the Derby or Stratford sites, and that it had asked Imagination Group Ltd. to develop further its proposals for the exhibition, to enable the commission to make a fully informed choice between the two remaining sites—the national exhibition centre and the Greenwich peninsula. Today's announcement by the commission takes the process closer to a firm commitment to finance an exhibition.
The commission was impressed by the NEC's potential: it was at the heart of the country, was well networked and had a sound operational track record. The strength of local support and the dedication and commitment of the team greatly impressed the commission; I pay tribute to that. The commission decided, however, that Greenwich offered the greatest potential as the site for an exhibition that would meet the commission's aspirations, allowing more people to see a more exciting presentation of the exhibition theme based on time. The chosen site is on the prime meridian, and the Imagination proposals for Greenwich feature "The Circle of Time", adding a potential dramatic landmark.
Moreover, the Greenwich peninsula could enable the commission to deliver a substantial legacy by regenerating an important part of south London through a potential permanent entertainment and leisure development, together with residential and retail space. It could also stimulate the further regeneration of the remaining British Gas landholding on the peninsula. That would represent excellent value for grant.
I stress that the celebration will not be confined to Greenwich; there will be a nationwide programme. The programme organisation will begin later this year. In 1997, we will see the development of a series of regional centres to shape the content of the exhibition. Artistic, scientific, historical and sporting components will be incorporated into the millennium exhibition. In 2000, each region will own a week in the millennium exhibition programme and will deliver its vision of the new millennium. The exhibition will be presented in 12 themed pavilions, each focusing on a different

interpretation of time—such as "Action Time" and "Past Time"—with parallel entertainment, education and activity programmes.
The commission is inviting Sir Peter Levene to examine the work completed to date and the work that Imagination, British Gas and English Partnerships are undertaking, and to provide advice to the commission by its May meeting as to whether a sound and commercially viable proposal is deliverable. If so, the commission expects to confirm the grant, partnership funding, planning and other implementational issues by September. British Gas will now proceed with site decontamination and preparation works on the Greenwich peninsula.
For the first time, the commission has made public its financial commitment to the exhibition—in principle, it is willing to commit up to £200 million in lottery grant to the exhibition, and the remaining capital and operating costs will be raised from other sources. The commission stressed that the exhibition depends on the private sector to deliver its full potential. The commission will need to be fully satisfied of the viability of the whole project, including the firm commitment of private sector support, before confirming its grant decision.
The exhibition is the single most significant event to be funded by the national lottery. The lottery is already helping to regenerate the cultural fabric of the country, providing financial assistance to projects that develop social cohesion by bringing people together to participate in sport, the arts and heritage projects. It is changing the landscape for community involvement.
With a project of this scale, it is inevitable that there will be implications for Government. In order to ensure that the Government's participation is well planned and co-ordinated, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today announced that he has asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group that will have the task of overseeing the Government's role and taking forward the necessary planning of any Government involvement in this event.
This unique opportunity to stage the millennium exhibition would not be possible without the contribution from the national lottery, which has already brought benefits to people across the country. It provides the means by which the dreams and aspirations of the people can find their realisation. Future generations will look back on the millennium exhibition as the time and the place when the United Kingdom showed the world just what we can achieve, working together as a nation to leave a truly lasting legacy for the future.

Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Lady has made an important statement about one of the largest projects that we shall see in Britain over the coming years. She and her fellow commissioners had the unenviable task of deciding between the merits of excellent proposals from competing cities. There are natural and understandable disappointments as a result of the decision, particularly in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands.
A decision has at last been taken—after a somewhat extended and perhaps even byzantine process—during which time those hoping to host the exhibition could not discuss their proposals with those hoping to operate it, and vice versa. I am sure that hon. Members would like to know why that convoluted process was introduced.


Today the right hon. Lady has made it clear to hon. Members that there is still no certainty that a viable project has emerged. It might be described as a chronicle of wasted time. However, many people share the view that Greenwich is an appropriate choice for the home of the exhibition, as the meridian has been used as the basis of international time reckoning for over 100 years.
May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that we recognise the huge potential of the millennium exhibition, not simply for Greenwich or even London, but nationally and internationally? It will be of key importance for Britain and for our economy, directly through tourism and, indirectly as a shop window for Britain, especially as Britain's and London's cultural, creative and innovative industries will have an opportunity to develop further there.
Which Ministers and Government Departments will be represented on the proposed ministerial group that the right hon. Lady mentioned? What co-ordination will take place between those Departments? What will be the relationship of that group with the Millennium Commission? Is the group taking charge of the project rather than the commission? If so, that makes it a political matter, when the purpose of the commission was to establish a non-party political approach to what was being proposed. Is not it, to say the least, curious that the Deputy Prime Minister is to chair that ministerial group, rather than the right hon. Lady? What is the explanation for that?
I must express our best wishes to Councillor Len Duval, his team in Greenwich and Greenwich Millennium Trust, on their success in winning this project. How will the Government respond to the trust's proposal that a guarantee should be given that the Jubilee line will be operational at the time of the exhibition, that a river boat service from central London to Greenwich will be provided and that there will be a connection between Greenwich and the British Rail network, perhaps by the construction of a tramway system?
Is not the proposal that the millennium exhibition site be a car-free zone very appropriate in the circumstances? But is not it essential that those public transport infrastructure developments are completed and operational in time? If that is not so, is not the right hon. Lady's claim that this will be a truly national exhibition likely not to be fulfilled as we would all wish it to be?
Can the right hon. Lady tell us more about the proposed regional centres, which will be part of the exhibition? Where will they be located, when will the sites be identified and what process will be used to decide on them? How long does she plan the exhibition to last?
What thought has been given to the potential long-term gains for Greenwich, London and the nation of such huge investments? Half a billion pounds in total—some people estimate even more—will perhaps be invested in the project. Surely we must construct buildings of quality, which will stand the test of time, as this country did in 1851 in south Kensington and again in 1951 with the Royal Festival hall. It does not create much confidence in the decisions that have been announced today, when we are curiously left uncertain as to whether the Government can ensure that the proposals will actually come into being.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his overall recognition of the complexity and difficulty of

the decision that has been taken and of the special role that Greenwich can play, not only nationally but internationally. It was a difficult decision, but it was the commission's ultimate view that Greenwich offered the opportunity to leave a landmark development on that significant Thames-side site, provided a great impetus for the regeneration of the derelict site on that peninsula and offered the potential to create new economic opportunities for a depressed area. Like the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that the potential for tourism is important, not only nationally—15 million visitors are expected—but internationally.
Further details of the proposals are yet to be announced. I shall have to leave many of the precise elements to Imagination to announce itself in due course. One of the strong themes of the concept is the regional component, and different parts of the country will participate and contribute their own elements to the exhibition.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the 1851 and 1951 exhibitions. We want our millennium exhibition and festival to exceed even those. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the ministerial group, details of which are set out in an answer from the Prime Minister this afternoon. It includes Ministers from the different countries of the United Kingdom and the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Transport and for the Home Department. The intention is to co-ordinate support for the millennium exhibition, including questions of planning, transport, and crowd control and security.
Inevitably at times, with such an enormous project, it will be necessary to co-ordinate with the Government. We have set that in hand, but the Millennium Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is independent. It benefits from the contribution of a member who is the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition and, undoubtedly, the care and the rigour with which the decisions have been scrutinised by the commission cannot be overstated. I pay special tribute to the chairman of the festival committee, Simon Jenkins, who has taken an inordinate amount of care, time and trouble—with the rest of the festival committee—to reach the point at which we could announce the decision.

Mr. John Biffen: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is in the market for another job, may I suggest that he be directed to establish a millennium-free zone, to which all those may repair who do not want to be deafened and drenched by millennium mania in the next two or three years?

Mrs. Bottomley: I hate to fall out so strongly with such a respected and revered Member of the House, but I believe that the millennium is an important moment for the nation, because we have proud traditions and a great future also. Our nation should take the opportunity to celebrate our achievements, abilities and potential. I believe that the celebration will be a unifying event and greatly enjoyed by all.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course, it is right that there should be millennium celebrations up and down the land, but my colleagues and I wish to welcome the announcement that Greenwich has been chosen. It is the obvious and best site, and it will provide the most exciting opportunity for a lasting celebration for the local, regional and national good.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that we shall use the opportunity afforded by the announcement to ensure that the whole of the Thames, from Battersea and Vauxhall down to Greenwich, becomes Europe's leading arts, recreational and cultural centre? Can we ensure that the exhibition is truly a people's exhibition that all people can afford to visit?
Finally, it is an irony that the Government's greatest exhibitionist has been chosen to run the exhibition.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the wonderful site for the exhibition. I think that it will be a great success, not only nationally but internationally. Many people endorse his vision of the Thames, and the national lottery gives us an opportunity to invest in many environmental improvements and projects of artistic excellence along the Thames. It is exciting to see that wonderful river being improved and restored and people taking opportunities to benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that some of the concepts involved in the festival at Greenwich will use the Thames as it should be used, which is as a means of transport.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the high precedent set in 1851 and 1951, I sympathise with my right hon. Friend on the challenge with which the commission was faced. I congratulate the commission on the thoroughness and imagination of the consideration that led to the decision. I hope that the architecture will be worthy of the traditions of Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren, so that the whole nation can unite behind making the exhibition a worthy successor to its great predecessors.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend, whose diligence and foresight did much to set in place the work of the Millennium Commission and the ideas that it has initiated. I was slightly alarmed when I was passed his first document as chairman of the Millennium Commission, as it reminded the readers that the last millennium was presided over by Ethelred the Unready. We hope to be better prepared than that.
I take to heart my right hon. Friend's comments about architecture. I believe that the millennium should be a moment for recognising the past and celebrating the future. Good design in the buildings that are part of the exhibition and in all those buildings funded by the national lottery should be one of the key criteria.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the decision that the millennium festival and exhibition should be located on the meridian line in Greenwich, which is the most natural place to celebrate the millennium in Britain. The decision will be warmly welcomed in an area that has suffered disproportionately from industrial decline and unemployment, because of the regeneration capacity and the scope for creating up to 10,000 new jobs. I put it to the right hon. Lady that a great deal of work will need to be done over the next three and a half years on a tight time scale, and I urge her to ensure that the Millennium Commission and the Government give their full support

to all those in Greenwich who will be working flat out in the months and years ahead, to ensure that the exhibition is truly worthy of its predecessors in 1851 and 1951.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the amount of work that remains to be done in order to bring this site of enormous potential into full life. The legacy of the river walks and the leisure, entertainment, residential and retail opportunities is formidable, but it will be a major task, with a tight timetable. I am confident that, with the good will of all the parties involved, we can achieve it.

Mr. John Butcher: When my right hon. Friend said that the millennium should be
a single shared experience for the whole nation
does not that invite us to allow the nation, through a free vote in the House, to express an opinion on the two sites, closely contested as the decision was? I have no idea whether the people of Scotland, Wales or the north would prefer to go to London rather than Birmingham, but at least let there be a free vote after a short debate to look at the options.
Having spoken to some of the people in the design industry and some of the technologists who will be involved in the project, I can tell my right hon. Friend that there is already a fear that, if too much of the money available is spent on infrastructure and buildings, we may end up with a slightly tattier exhibition inside them than would be the case at the more cost-effective site in the midlands.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am not convinced that a vote in the House would be the most appropriate way of making the decision, although I would dare wager with my hon. Friend that, if hon. Members had to make a decision, they would all favour their own constituency and, following that, they would probably say that the capital city was as good a place as any in which to have the festival. That is simply a humble matter of conjecture. In a speech 18 months ago, the Prime Minister referred to the Millennium Commission's work and said:
Never have so many advised so few about so much. And it will get worse. But since the Commission is a fiercely independent body, and will remain so, I do not regard myself as in any way disqualified from adding to their burden.
He was referring to matters other than where the site of the millennium festival should be, but his words were indeed prophetic.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable dismay in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the total failure to recognise that there are nations within the United Kingdom as well as regions? Is she further aware that the vast majority of my constituents will be unable to go to the exhibition in Greenwich, even though I welcome the fact that there will be an exhibition there? Why on earth did we not have a multi-site exhibition at several of the major cities, including, of course, Glasgow?

Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman sees the plans unfold in the year ahead, I think that he will be reassured by the extent to which all parts of the country will be involved in the millennium exhibition and festival.
With regard to different projects in various parts of the country, I am reminded that only recently there was a major Millennium Commission announcement for Hampden park. I seem to remember that, last Friday, Cardiff Arms park heard that it was to receive £46 million. Indeed, all parts of the country are benefiting, and the Millennium Commission has announced a number of substantial projects in all parts of the country, not only in the capital city.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon,Friend aware that there is no point in having a capital city unless it is treated as such? Is she further aware that the National Heritage Select Committee recently took evidence from the British Tourist Authority, that the great majority of potential foreign visitors want to come to London? That being so, the decision that has been made will result in more visitors coming to Britain, which will benefit the economy as a whole.

Mrs. Bottomley: It is my view that we should be proud of our capital city. It is a cultural, commercial and communications centre of very high quality, and the millennium festival will add greatly to the opportunities.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the correct title under statute of English Partnerships, which has been bought into this, is the Urban Regeneration Agency, which is funded by £190 million a year of Government money? Will she tell us at what point and on what date urban regeneration became a key factor in the millennium exhibition? If it was a key factor, no one in the midlands would ever have bid for what in effect is a green-field site at the national exhibition centre. It naturally follows, therefore, either that the rules were misunderstood in the midlands or that they changed after the exercise began.
Will the Secretary of State further confirm, as she has not yet done so, that Imagination will be the operator at Greenwich, because at no time did it ever give details of the millennium exhibition at the Greenwich site out of choice? It did so only after Birmingham's bid, which was seen to be superior to the other operator, had been seen behind closed doors. It tried to transpose what it had done for the NEC to Greenwich. Will Imagination be the operator at Greenwich?

Mrs. Bottomley: First, to deal with English Partnerships, its work is to promote the reclamation and development of vacant, derelict and contaminated land throughout England, to stimulate local enterprise, create jobs and improve the environment. It acts primarily as an enabler, working in partnership with other bodies involved in urban regeneration. It is believed that its involvement in the scheme at Greenwich will enable the work to be completed in time for the millennium. The commission always took the view that the legacy from the exhibition was important. There are legacies of various kinds, but a legacy involving major regeneration and restoring the river walkways was one that captured the imagination of the commission.
Of course, Birmingham was not the only other site. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was a vigorous champion of the Derby proposal. The site is magnificent, but the commission took the view that it was not possible to bring it forward to the

short short-list. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has been a formidable champion of the NEC case and of the significance of the west midlands. The commission was aware of the great excitement and the pressure from people in various parts of the country to favour their particular sites.

Mr. Rooker: You changed the rules.

Mrs. Bottomley: Throughout, the commission has acted openly, fairly, and swiftly in making a decision that it felt was right for the nation as we celebrate the new millennium.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will inevitably be great disappointment in Birmingham about the decision, but that that is as nothing compared with the anger that will be felt at the manner in which the decision was made, the latest example of which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? How does she explain why the corporation of London was briefed and allowed to announce the decision last Friday, when all other information of any kind was being refused point blank to the rival bidder? Is there any conceivable way in which Birmingham and the NEC could have won the so-called contest?

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall answer my right hon. Friend's last question first. Undoubtedly, the NEC might well have won the contest. It is well known to all of us as Ministers; it is accessible, provides an excellent service and is extremely popular. I can speak warmly of the constructive and co-operative approach of the team there. The decision was very finely balanced, but for reasons that I have set out, the commission's view is that the right place to hold the festival is Greenwich.
As for information becoming public, I am a mere novice in this place and in politics in general, compared with my right hon. Friend, and he will know how, with the best will in the world and the most careful preparation, information that one greatly wishes to remain confidential sometimes hits the public domain in advance. That is a source of great regret. However, the exhibition is an extremely complex matter and many different interests are involved. My right hon. Friend will know that keeping matters confidential is difficult enough even within Government, and I think that when one is taking forward plans involving so many different bodies, it is understandable how the information was released, much though I deplore the fact.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that one region that has not benefited from millennium funds is the northern region? One element of the exhibition that she described could be provided by the International Centre for Life, proposed by Tyne and Wear development corporation and supported by Newcastle university and Newcastle city council. That is the most innovative, futuristic and imaginative scheme yet put to the Millennium Commission, yet it has been inexplicably deferred. Will the Secretary of State look into that?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of the project that the hon. Gentleman describes, because many of those involved in it were associates of mine in a previous job. It sounds an


exciting project, but it must be well established, with funding properly settled, and several other issues must be resolved first. I must correct the hon. Gentleman about millennium funding, because Tyneside, for example, has received £5.7 million for the Smith's park regeneration project. I was in Newcastle only the other day, and I marvelled not only at the investment in the area and the regeneration taking place there, but at how much of that now revolves round arts, sports, heritage and the other cultural activities to which the lottery has made the most formidable contribution.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the mantle of Prince Albert is to sit easily on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, it is important, first, that the buildings that house the exhibition are of pre-eminent quality and, secondly, that the exhibition is not dominated by gimmicks, but is a reflection of the best that this country has produced and can produce? Does she agree that the whole thing will be a total mockery unless the Royal Naval college at Greenwich is properly reprieved and remains a public building and institution through the next millennium?

Mrs. Bottomley: Far be it from me to deflect from the formidable contribution for which we hope from the Deputy Prime Minister, but his role as a member of the Millennium Commission is probably at least as significant as his role as chairman of the ministerial group. This is a highly complex, important project. Vast sums of money and a tight timetable will be involved and it is important to be able to streamline the relations with different Departments. The question of building design is given careful consideration, and the chief architectural adviser at the Department of National Heritage will shortly meet all the different lottery distribution bodies to discuss their measures, to ensure that the buildings constructed as a result of the national lottery are of high-quality design.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: How is it that this Government and previous Tory Governments always seem to make of any issue to do with the arts and the heritage—and we have only got to ask people who work in those areas—either a minor farce or a major tragedy? How does this arise time after time in this area? More specifically, would the right hon. Lady be prepared to receive representations from some of her colleagues as to an excellent project that is being thought up, which will be an illuminated statue trail all the way from the National gallery to the Tate gallery?

Mrs. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Faulds: A brief answer, please.

Mrs. Bottomley: It takes one to know one. The only major tragedy, of course, would be if the Labour party were ever in power. It seems to want only to cap the prizes and to increase the lottery's operating costs, which would mean that we would be unable to invest in these great opportunities. The hon. Gentleman refers to a statue trail, which is one of many exciting initiatives presented for lottery funding. I would be extremely sympathetic to

it, but I am merely the humble chairman of the Millennium Commission, which is served by a group of independent-minded, wilful human beings who do not follow a three-line Whip from their chairman.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Secretary of State understand that many people in the north of England will not share in the grumpy noises that have been made on the Back Benches and that they will look forward to visiting the exhibition? They would much prefer to visit it in London than in Birmingham, which they think of as a place that people go through on the way to London. They will think it especially appropriate for the exhibition to be in London, remembering that 90 per cent. of lottery awards so far have been awarded to places outside London.
Will the Secretary of State give particular attention to the problem of Cumbria, which sits uneasily between the northern and north-west regions, to ensure that, when the regional role arises in 1997 and 2000, Cumbria has a special place, bearing in mind the magnificent future that it has?

Mrs. Bottomley: Although my right hon. Friend expressed sentiments with which I think many hon. Members would agree, perhaps he was unduly harsh about the joys of Birmingham. I think I made it clear that there were many strengths in Birmingham's bid, and it is certainly a magnificent city. I shall certainly bear in mind my right hon. Friend's comments about Cumbria. As we reach the first anniversary of the distribution of lottery awards, all the distributing bodies wish to be sure that every part of the country has benefited. It is remarkable that, although awards have been made for under a year, already 5,121 awards totalling £1,225 million have been made. That is a remarkable success story in a short time.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: Does the Minister acknowledge that the whole bidding process has been an absolute charade? Will she confirm that the decision about London was taken some time ago and that the excuses that have been trotted out about Birmingham and the other cities are merely to fit that decision? Will she explain the position of Imagination? Which site does it favour, bearing it in mind that it worked on the Birmingham bid and has now been brought into the London one? Were the bidding rules changed? Birmingham complied exactly with the time scale, but can the Minister explain why London was given additional weeks to put together its proposals?

Mrs. Bottomley: The commission has sought throughout to be absolutely fair and even-handed. It set a timetable that it knew was tight, but there was always the potential to ask for further information, to satisfy itself on additional points as it made progress. Imagination is a most exciting concept, involving "The Circle of Time" and the participation of all parts of the country. In its original presentation to the festival committee and the commission, it had worked up proposals for all the different sites that are involved. When the commission first saw the Imagination proposals, "The Circle of Time" plans had been worked out for the Greenwich peninsula.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the decision is a


considerable tribute to the beneficial effects of the national lottery which, of course, was introduced by a Conservative Government. Will she go beyond the statement on the success of Greenwich and consider the frankly overdue enhancement of many of the benefits along the great River Thames? They include Bankside, the plans for the beautiful Battersea park by Wandsworth council, and the plans for further along the river by my own borough, the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. That is all good news for London, which we should look at as a whole.

Mrs. Bottomley: It is indeed good news for London, and I note that a news release from London First today states:
This is a unique opportunity to regenerate a major part of London and will provide a lasting legacy for the generations to come. As importantly, it will act as a springboard for London to lead the world into the next millennium.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are three other sites close to the chosen exhibition site, which could house associated activities? They are the Meridian site in West Ham, which is less than a mile away; the royal docks, which are 500 yd from the site; and, pre-eminently, Greenwich town. Will she answer the question of her hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and assure us that the premises of the Royal Naval college will be available during that period? Finally, because Greenwich is a measurement not only of time but of longitude 0 deg, will the right hon. Lady and her groups take suggestions about enlarging the millennium concept into the international and global spheres?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of some of the other sites involved, especially the Stratford site, which has enormous potential and where I have no doubt that considerable development will take place. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the hon. Gentleman for omitting to mention the Royal Naval college—a magnificent Sir Christopher Wren building. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is leading efforts to find a viable future purpose for that truly magnificent building. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we are proposing that it should become a UNESCO world heritage site. He will therefore understand to what extent my Department is involved in ensuring that that wonderful heritage is not only safeguarded but properly and fully used.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Following that point directly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill is tasked among other things with considering granting our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the right to issue a 150-year lease for Greenwich hospital? Does she agree that her announcement should cause one to look more imaginatively at the whole Greenwich site, and perhaps consider joining the national maritime museum site and Greenwich hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an exciting and interesting proposal. That site, on which was built a

palace that became a hospital and is now a college, needs to find a new and practical purpose. I believe strongly that heritage should not be fossilised but used, visited and treasured. It is perhaps the most remarkable site in the country. If the plans for the festival involving the use of water transport make progress, very many more people will have the opportunity to see the site from the water as well as visiting it on foot. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's other suggestions to those who are more involved in the detail of the festival.

Mr. Terry Davis: If Greenwich and London were such natural and obvious choices, why was a competition held in the first place? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the fact that she could hardly keep her face straight when she read the statement will be taken as conclusive evidence that the competition was a farce from beginning to end?

Mrs. Bottomley: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I can say only that the Millennium Commission was extremely diligent about having a competition for the site and a separate debate about the operator. Fifty-seven potential sites were offered to host the festival, and four potential operators came forward. It was a very difficult decision. The hon. Gentleman sees an expression of delight on my face because very many hours of deliberation and debate have for the time being reached a conclusion. It is the right decision, and it will lead to a great deal of fulfilment and opportunity for the people of this country.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her announcement will be greeted with great disappointment in Birmingham and the west midlands? Birmingham is the nation's second city and a great deal more than simply an industrial or scientific centre. It has a growing reputation for culture. My right hon. Friend's announcement will do nothing to encourage Birmingham. Other hon. Members have said that people travel through Birmingham on the way to London. That is one reason why the exhibition should have been given to Birmingham. It would have established an alternative centre. My right hon. Friend should understand that there is life outside London.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have here a list of 50 different lottery awards that have gone to the Birmingham area. Two are very substantial—one to the Ikon gallery and one to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra. It is a very exciting and vibrant city, with a very good university. There is a great deal of activity. Although I regret that it has not on this occasion won the opportunity to stage the millennium festival, I am aware that it has submitted another very substantial millennium bid, for which it hopes it will receive tens of millions of pounds, for one of the flagship regeneration projects.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: In welcoming the commission's decision on what I see as the obvious site on the prime meridian in Greenwich, I also welcome the announcement that, although Greenwich will be the focus of celebrations, there will be regional and local celebrations also. Does the right hon. Lady share my view that not only should it be an opportunity for fun and


enjoyment, but there should be a lasting legacy, and the Greenwich site provides that opportunity in terms of sustainable development and economic regeneration? Will she impress upon the Deputy Prime Minister, who is to chair the committee, the importance of sustainable development, of the tramlink, of the use of the river for public transport and of the regeneration of the arsenal site and its heritage proposals?

Mrs. Bottomley: I will. It was precisely the elements that the hon. Gentleman identified that persuaded the commission—difficult though the decision was—that the Greenwich site was the right place to have the festival. It will be a shared national experience, bringing together the successes of the past and our aspirations for the future, to provide hope and inspiration for us all as we enter the next millennium.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We now move to the statement by the Prime Minister.

Northern Ireland

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Anglo-Irish summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
The Taoiseach and I met in Downing street this afternoon and agreed a way forward set out in our communique, copies of which I hope by now will have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.
First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism, and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of that ceasefire. Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored.
Thirdly, we and the Irish Government will conduct further intense consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place. As the communiqué makes clear, the Irish Government can support an elective process that is broadly acceptable.
Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10 June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored. Fifthly, we have agreed that, at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and to address also at the beginning of the negotiations Senator Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning of weapons.
I believe that these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach, to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will feel able to subscribe. No one will find in there all that he may have asked for; equally, no one need fear that his basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.
The approach that the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still the detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have the framework and a time scale to address and to decide these matters.
We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That, I must tell the House, is the position of the Irish Government as well.
The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government,


we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable. The second issue is the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again, there are strongly held views, although many believe that such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace. The third issue is the format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.
We have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government for some time. I should have liked to be in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to be able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to be filled in.
If I judge that it would be helpful, I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome. Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during that period, let me make it clear that, at the end of it, the Government will put forward to the House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced.
These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make it clear that the process cannot be held up further if, in the end, there is still a complete lack of agreement.
We are taking these decisions upon ourselves—together, where appropriate, with the Irish Government—because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.
There is one other aspect of the communiqué that I should bring to the attention of the House—the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful democratic methods and rejection of violence.
The Government will consider further with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum, but we will listen to the views of the parties, and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.
Meanwhile, let there be no doubt on three points. The first is that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations themselves. Those who advocate violence, or who do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or the threat of its use by others, cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them.
Senator Mitchell's report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons, and makes proposals on how that can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles

and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.
The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism or violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering thread of obfuscation and pretence about that.
The third point is that the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments has never been better than it is at the moment. We will hunt down those responsible for the bombings and killings, and maintain security at whatever level is necessary to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business. The people of this country and of the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met, and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.
The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9 February; but the Government said that we would not be deflected from our efforts, and we have not been. I am grateful for the support for our efforts that we have received from all parts of the House and across all parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and to bring a lasting peace. With the support of this House, I believe that we will succeed. But I must warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we in this House understand it.
As we go through the process leading to the negotiations, and as we take the difficult decisions that lie ahead, concerns will be raised from this or that side, and this or that interest. We will take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective, because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. Their lives and their futures must be our first concern. I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and, ultimately, to a lasting and comprehensive peace.

Mr. Tony Blair: May I welcome the statement, and the determination to try to put the peace process back on track? That is greatly to the credit of both the British and Irish Governments, and all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. If, two weeks ago, optimism seemed somewhat incredible and hope completely out of place, at least today—although it is far too soon for optimism—there is some sense of renewed hope.
The statement has had to be put together quickly, and I wish to understand correctly two questions arising from it. First, how do we move forward to negotiations for a long-term settlement for Northern Ireland? Secondly, what are the essential minimum conditions before Sinn Fein will be allowed to participate?
On the first point, am I right in saying that the Prime Minister has now set 10 June as a firm date for all-party negotiations, and that multilateral consultations will begin almost immediately? If the consultations provide an agreement for a broadly acceptable elective process, do we then move straight to 10 June? If there is no agreement between the parties on a broadly acceptable elective process, will the Government bring forward their own


plans on the basis of what they think is broadly acceptable? I simply ask the obvious question—what if it is not possible to reach a broadly acceptable process by either route?
Am I right in saying that the Prime Minister said that the Government essentially will listen to what the parties say on the subject of a referendum during the process, and will not give their own views until the end of that process?

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Mr. Blair: On the legislation for the elections, I should say on behalf of the Opposition that, provided, of course, it is broadly acceptable to both communities, we will obviously facilitate the legislation and co-operate in getting it through the House.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in a sense, we now have an agreement to have discussions to agree on a way forward, with at least the principle of an elective process being agreed—that is an achievement—if not the mechanism? Does he agree that we have such an agreement—rather than an agreement on the way forward itself—which at least maintains the momentum? Does he further agree that it will require not a compromise of basic principles, but give and take on the part of all parties if the consultations are to work?
On the second point—the position of Sinn Fein in relation to the process—I think that everybody wants the process to move forward. But the flow of democracy should not be stemmed simply because the IRA has chosen to revert to violence. Everyone would prefer Sinn Fein to be in the peace process provided it is genuinely committed to peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that it cannot, and will not, be allowed to drive the process—to seek to guide by violence what it cannot achieve through persuasion?
The bombings of past weeks were atrocities utterly without regard for human life. I want to be clear that we have understood the basis on which Sinn Fein may enter at any stage of the proceedings. Is it to be allowed to participate in the multilateral discussions if it calls a ceasefire? On the all-party negotiations, is it that, before it gains admission to the full-blown negotiations, it must accept the Mitchell six principles or is it rather that at the beginning of the negotiations to which it is to be given access, it must accept the six principles and address decommissioning as set out in Mitchell? We must be clear about that. It is also clear that, if there is any reversion whatever, or any threat of reversion, to violence during the course of negotiations, it goes out altogether. The Prime Minister said that it must address Mitchell on decommissioning; perhaps he could say a word or two about that.
Is it not right once again to repeat from this House that, now that all democratic parties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic—that is the important point—have agreed that the status of Northern Ireland will not change without the consent of the people, there can be no remote, residual justification, even on its own terms, for the IRA continuing any form of violence?
I acknowledge, as the Prime Minister does, that the road to peace is going to be tough. He has taken risks so far; the Irish Government have; all parties have. We have

supported them over the peace process. We will continue to do so. It is the people who want peace—not at any price, not by giving in to violence, but they want peace so that the genuine debate about the future of Northern Ireland can be resolved by democratic means.
Over the past few weeks, lives have been lost, and I do not think that people will easily forget that—nor should they. If it should happen that a ceasefire is called again and restored immediately—as it must and should be—I hope that what the Prime Minister has outlined today, even in its most tentative stages, can offer the chance of building that peaceful future for all the people in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will try to meet the particular points that he raised.
Tenth of June is intended as a firm date for the start of negotiations. Multilateral negotiations between the parties will begin on the elective process on Monday. We will begin to discuss that on Monday. I hope that we are going to reach an agreement on a broadly acceptable elective process. If we reach agreement on that, we will bring forward that agreement for legislation.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, despite intensive negotiations, I am unable to reach agreement with the political parties on an elective process, I will make a judgment as to what I think is the best elective process and I will bring that proposition before the House of Commons and invite it to support that proposition. That is not comfortable. I do not wish to be in that position, but neither do I wish agreement on a mechanism to get us into all-party talks and to set up a possible future development to be held up by this dispute over the nature of elections.
I hope to reach agreement, but, if I cannot reach agreement, I shall bring forward what I think to be the best option, and I will invite the House of Commons to support me on that option, and the House will make its own judgment about whether it should. That is what I propose to do. I shall first, of course, have significant extra consultations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the best way forward is with Sinn Fein as an inclusive part of the talks. Of course that is right but not, as he said about another aspect, at any price. The ceasefire has to be restored, and on the same terms that we had in August 1994. That is fairly clear, and it is set out clearly also in the joint communiqué.
Sinn Fein's entry to the all-party talks and how they will be structured was a point to which the right hon. Gentleman turned, and it is vital. Let me try to set it out.
First, for there to be any proposition enabling Sinn Fein to take part, there needs to be a ceasefire of the nature to which I just referred. After the elective process, in which there will be elections to the proposed forum, we anticipate that the party leaders of those elected would nominate from the forum members who would then act as their individual negotiating teams. The negotiating teams would meet. The first item in the negotiations would be the Mitchell principles in their wider aspect, including the points that need to be dealt with on decommissioning. That would be the lead item in the negotiations, which would begin on 10 June.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised a crucial point: what would be the position if violence were to restart after the negotiations had begun? I think that that has both a practical answer and the answer that the House would demand. The practical answer is that it would not be feasible for the other parties to negotiate with any party were violence to return: by that violence, that party would have voluntarily excluded itself from the negotiations. I believe that that would have the united support of all right hon. and hon. Members.
Therefore, the choice is with Sinn Fein. It must decide whether it remains an inclusive part of the negotiating process. I very much hope that it will put itself in a position to take part, and will keep itself in a position to take part, in the negotiations.
Let me reiterate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the status of Northern Ireland. I remind the House of the triple lock to which I have referred in the past, one part of which is that, at the conclusion of the all-party negotiations—on the presumption that there is an agreement at the end of those negotiations—that agreement, emerging from the all-party negotiations with the constitutional parties, would be put to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland. Only thereafter would it be brought to the House.
The triple lock exists in the agreement among the parties to the negotiations—constitutional parties above all—in the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, and, on the back of those two agreements, in legislation brought before Parliament for its agreement. That is what we have referred to as the triple lock. It is to guarantee that the consent principle for Northern Ireland, which is widely accepted by almost every party and is self-evidently the will of the House, can be sure to have been met to the satisfaction of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: It is now a month since the last statement on Northern Ireland—a month lost because of the opposition of the Irish Government and other parties to the democratic process.
I welcome the statement's reaffirmation of the need for Sinn Fein-IRA to commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in practice, that will be more difficult to achieve following the bombs in London? It cannot be made easier for Sinn Fein-IRA; otherwise, it will have gained from its terrorism. Consequently, we agree that establishing and honouring such a commitment to peaceful means by Sinn Fein-IRA must be the priority—the first item to be addressed and resolved.
Does the Prime Minister realise that, until that item can be resolved, we shall find it impossible to meet Sinn Fein face to face? Does he agree that, in this context, the idea of proximity talks could be useful? Does he accept that there can be no question of Sinn Fein's progressing beyond that first item on the agenda until the other parties are satisfied about the quality of its commitment to peaceful means?
Does the Prime Minister accept that the Mitchell proposals for decommissioning require legislative action in the British and Irish Parliaments, and that that must be done by both Parliaments before 10 June? Otherwise, there will be a serious problem.
Finally, we have grave reservations about the use of referendums, particularly any referendum that might give the false impression that the relevant political unit is the island of Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him entirely: every day lost in this process, while there is uncertainty, is a tragedy. The impact of the renewed campaign of mindless violence in the last month is not only a disgrace, but makes it harder for those who seek peace to find a way in which it can be viably achieved. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he had to say about exclusively peaceful means, and equally right to state that it now makes it more difficult to persuade people that anyone is genuine in their intentions as a result of what has happened over the past few days.
The establishment of and the commitment to peace must be met and resolved. The Mitchell report sets out a way forward, and we believe that all concerned should be able to agree. It is not entirely easy for everyone, but I think it will be possible for everyone to agree to proceed in that way.
The issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be on the agenda at the beginning of the negotiations and will have to be addressed seriously by all concerned—including Sinn Fein, if the violence has ended and if it is in the negotiations. We will be urging all the parties to address the agreed agenda in that positive spirit so that the comprehensive negotiations can go forward successfully. The issues relating to decommissioning cannot be dodged or swept aside—they are of critical importance, as Senator Mitchell has said, and as all hon. Members understand.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of legislative action in both Parliaments on matters related to a series of technical matters, including armaments. The hon. Gentleman is right: we would need to bring legislation before this House, and it is probable—subject to an examination of the law in the Republic—that the Irish Government would need to bring legislation before their Parliament as well. If that is necessary, it will be done, and it is being pursued. That should not provide an impediment to progress.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Harsh words have been spoken across the Floor of the House recently, so it gives me pleasure to commend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach for their tenacity in bringing forward these deliberations; I should like that comment to go on the record in the spirit in which it is given. The statement is important because it is a declaration of intent by the political process that our problems will be solved in one way, and one way only: through peaceful, democratic means.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in effect, this is a moment of truth for all paramilitary, terrorist groupings in Northern Ireland, who will have to make a choice whether they will join in creating that peace or will isolate themselves in standing against the express wishes of the Irish people who want that peace so desperately?
The Prime Minister has said that the only reason for an elective process, which he knows we oppose, is to go directly and immediately into all-party negotiations.
Will the Prime Minister give an assurance in this House today that this process will not be allowed—or that the two Governments will not allow it—to be used by any


party or parties as a reason for engaging on another pub crawl of preconditions? Will he give an assurance that those who enter into this process are duty-bound to begin those negotiations and to continue them through until they either end successfully or they have reached their time limit, which the Prime Minister has not yet spoken about?
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, when he sets out the timetable, as he has done here, no vetoes will be exercisable within this process, and that no preconditions will be used to prevent negotiations from moving to a successful conclusion?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The House is occasionally familiar with harsh words, and occasionally with generous words, and, at the outset of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman exemplified the latter.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the paramilitaries must make a choice. The road to political respectability for those in Sinn Fein is set out here, if they have the courage and the will to take it, but the choice must be theirs. If they take that road, if there is a comprehensive ceasefire, if they enter into the negotiations in the way set out by the Mitchell committee, the road to full-scale political respectability is open for Sinn Fein as a newly democratic party, but the choice is theirs and only they can make that choice. I can provide the opportunity, but I cannot compel them to take it. I very much hope that they will, but the choice is for them.
As far as the process is concerned, the fundamental purpose of what I had to say this afternoon was precisely to set a firm date for the negotiations to begin. On that firm date, I hope that we will find all parties prepared, in whatever fashion, to take part in those negotiations and to carry them forward.
I do not want any party to put a roadblock in front of the negotiations—not the hon. Gentleman's or any other party—but I cannot compel parties to do something. I can set out the circumstances and encourage them to take options but I do not literally have the power to compel them to negotiate. I can set out the way and the circumstances in which they can, try to remove the impediments that each party feels lie in the way of negotiating, and encourage them to negotiate, and all that I will do. As a result, I hope that we will be able not only to enter negotiations, but to carry them properly and fully forward to a conclusion.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister must know how widely this statement will be welcomed, not just in the House but throughout the country, and in Ireland as well. The Government and others have had to compromise on it. That was the right and the courageous thing to do, and I commend the Government and the other parties for doing so.
I greatly welcome the fact that a firm date has been set. The two Governments are entirely right to insist that no one shall have a veto over that process. Those who will not relinquish violence cannot take part in those talks, but they cannot stop them happening, either. We would all much prefer Sinn Fein to be on board, but on board or overboard, it cannot stop the process continuing.
I have three brief questions to put to the Prime Minister. First, he is right to say that, if agreement cannot be reached on the context of the elections, the Government

must bring their own proposals to the House. Will he confirm that, in doing so, the thing that will weigh most heavily in his mind is not what the Government may prefer—the Government are likely to be neutral on this—but what will command the widest support for those elections?
Secondly, given the time frame in which the elections must be carried out, with a result by 10 June, will the Prime Minister confirm that it is most likely that the existing system of the single transferable vote is the only one that can conform to that time frame?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister address the all-party negotiations on 10 June, because the question put to him by the leader of the Labour party is absolutely relevant here? The Prime Minister said that adherence to the six principles of Mitchell will be the first item on the agenda. Will he confirm that it will not be possible for parties simply to hold up progress at those negotiations, if it is clear that they do not intend to adhere to those six principles?
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.
He said that that was his Government's view; will he also confirm that it is the Irish Government's view?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that last point: it is the view of the Irish Government as well. Let me make it quite clear, because the same point emerged from two separate observations that the right hon. Gentleman made.
If Sinn Fein drops violence and meets the same commitments as the other parties, it can continue in the negotiations—there is no difficulty with that. If it continues with violence, it will not stop the negotiations continuing after 10 June; they will continue without Sinn Fein. If violence were to reactivate after the negotiations had begun, equally, the negotiations would continue.
The democratic process will continue, and we are not in the mood to let it be derailed by those who do not subscribe to it. That is our opinion, and I believe that it is also the opinion of the Irish Government, as the right hon. Gentleman asked.
As I say, 10 June is the date for the negotiations to begin. It follows that the election must precede that date by a few days, but probably not by all that long. We are looking to determine the time scale exactly. In purely parliamentary terms, it is necessary to take account of the length of the Easter recess in terms of bringing negotiations forward.
Self-evidently, with that tight time scale, I would much prefer a consensus on the system to be used. Were there not to be a consensus, the normal rules of the House might impede the rapid passage of whatever legislation I proposed for the establishment of the elective process. I do not yet know the precise time scales, and they are being examined.
Clearly, the single transferable vote would be the speediest option, but it may not be the only one that would fall within the time scale. That it is the speediest is probably true, but that it may not be the only one is probably true as well.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister has expressed to an


elective process, not least because that proposal was put to him several years ago by my party. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has been able to persuade others who were against that process to come round to supporting it. May I also express a willingness, on behalf of my party, to take part in the intensive consultations, which he mentioned, especially to determine the means by which such negotiations shall take place?
Will the Prime Minister recognise that my party, like the Ulster Unionist party, would be prepared to negotiate only with legitimate political parties? Will the Prime Minister review the remarks he made earlier, when he said that he hoped that the ceasefire could be re-established on the same basis as before? Surely that is precisely what we do not want. We want a permanent ceasefire, not a temporary, tactical cessation of violence.

The Prime Minister: I had in mind the same basis as before, but this time without the word being broken as it was before. I think the basis on which the ceasefire was promised before was acceptable. What went wrong was that that promise was blatantly broken by the bombs. I wish to make it clear that a temporary and convenient ceasefire for a short period is not being suggested.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the elective process. I confirm that the Democratic Unionist party suggested that proposition some time ago, as did the Ulster Unionist party. I am also grateful to hear that the hon. Gentleman will take part in the intensive consultations on the means of the election. I hope that, as a result of those consultations, we will be able to reach a situation that will enable us to bring forward, with agreement, the legislation on the nature of the election not later than the moment that we return from the Easter recess, and, if possible, even earlier.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Prime Minister confirm, for the benefit of those hon. Members and the public in the present complex situation, that in no circumstances will Sinn Fein be admitted to substantive negotiations unless it conforms to two prior requirements: first, that it acknowledges the fundamental democratic procedure of consent; secondly, that it accepts the Mitchell principles? Both those considerations have already received the endorsement of constitutional nationalists.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the present peace process is based essentially on a ceasefire controlled entirely by terrorists and not by politicians? Will he explain how, following any renewal of such terrorism or any cessation of the present terrorism which is then renewed, he will deal with the enforcement of democratic procedures?

The Prime Minister: Since the terrorism recommenced, we have reviewed the security provisions with great care. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know from the evidence seen with his own eyes in his constituency of some of the measures that have been taken. He will also know that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss at the Dispatch Box some of the measures that have been taken.
I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that we have looked in the greatest detail at what needs to be done to protect the normal democratic way of life

of people in Northern Ireland as a result of the renewal of terrorism. Were there to be a ceasefire, and were it to be broken again in the hypothesis advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, again we would re-examine whatever further needed to be done. If more needed to be done on any occasion, it would be in our minds to take the action that we judged was right to deal with it. That has been our position for many years.
I believe that, for a long time, the terrorists operated on the basis that, if they continued with their terror, the time would come when one British Government or another would tire of the cost and effort of policing and having the Army in Northern Ireland, and would bow to their demands. After 25 years, they learned that that was not the case, and, were the terrorism to continue for another 25 years, it would not be the case. That is the strongest assurance on that point that I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else.
On the earlier part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the Mitchell principles embrace implicitly the points that he had in mind, and they will be dealt with at the outset of the negotiations.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Since it seems to me that the terrorists have been able to bomb themselves into the peace process thus far, can my right hon. Friend assure me, from his discussions today, that, no matter what they do in the future, it will stop there? The likes of Adams, McGuinness and Kelly are all terrorists. I do not accept the distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA—they are all the same evil people. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those people will not be contacting officials in this Government, and will not be contacting him or any other Ministers?

The Prime Minister: They cannot bomb themselves into the peace process. They have certainly bombed themselves out of the peace process, and they will keep themselves out of that process if they continue to use bombs. I have made it clear that the process will continue without them if there is a campaign of violence. The announcement that I have made today is in line with the discussions that we have had and the announcements that I have made to the House in the past before the campaign of violence recommenced.
What would have been a success for the bombers would be if we had been driven off the route down which we were going as a result of the return to bombing, and we expressly have not been. They are expressly on notice that the process is on track and continuing. They have an option to take part in that process, and they have the certainty that, if they do not put themselves in a circumstance in which they can take part, the process will continue without them. They can bomb themselves out of the process: they cannot bomb themselves into it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in the congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on what they have achieved today. I congratulate the Prime Minister particularly on the sternness of his approach in ensuring that, if the parties cannot agree on a system of elections, the Government will impose a system upon them in order to ensure that they proceed.
What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the idea of a referendum? A referendum throughout the whole of Ireland would be of the utmost importance, because it


would knock away the spurious theology of Sinn Fein that it owes its spurious legitimacy to the fact that it claims descent from the last time that there were democratic elections throughout the whole of Ireland. If the people of Ireland as a whole spoke in a referendum, that would remove the last vestiges of strange legitimacy that Sinn Fein can claim.

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to impose a system of elections on anyone. I will lay before the House what I believe is the right system, and I will invite the House to support me. I emphasise that I will need the support of the House, and I may need that support where there is no unanimity among the parties. I will bring forward a proposition for the House to consider.
I must tell the House that I can be concerned only with a referendum held in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government may decide to hold a parallel referendum in the south, but my responsibility would be for a referendum in the north. We are looking at whether that would be appropriate, and, if so, what the question might be. It clearly has to be a relevant question and one where there would be some net advantage in placing it before the people, most obviously on the date of the elections themselves.
I can think of a number of examples of what the question might be, and other hon. Members will have their own views. We will discuss it with the political parties. I am not yet convinced that that is the route down which we will go, but I am prepared to go down that route if there seems to be a will for it, and some advantage to be gained from it.

Mr. David Wilshire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his refusal to be bombed out of calling elections. What more can he say to the House to persuade me that the rest of the communiqué is not selling out to the men of violence? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that I am right to judge, after considering the communique, that we have yet again changed our stance on the requirements for decommissioning?
On the triple lock, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether Sinn Fein-IRA accepted the right of the people of Northern Ireland to settle their own future, because I have never heard Sinn Fein-IRA say so? If it will not, is that not a reason why it should not be allowed into the talks?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will look again at the communique, I do not think that he will sustain the charge that we have changed our stance. Our view on the matter has been clear cut. I do not think that it is correct for my hon. Friend to suggest that the Government are selling out to anyone, let alone the men of violence. It seems an odd way of selling out to someone to make it absolutely clear to them that, unless they give up their present pattern, they will be excluded from the talks, but that the talks will continue among the democratic political parties, and that their exclusion will be because of their actions in the weeks and months ahead.
Let me tell my hon. Friend and everybody else that I am anxious to try to create a circumstance in which there can generally be an agreement that will prevent the

campaigns of violence and bloodshed that we have seen for so long. It is true that I could stay in a trench and set up a hundred good reasons for doing nothing. I believe that, were I to do that, my successors would be standing here in 50 years' time in the same trench.
It is for that reason that we have compromised on some issues in the past, and it is right to do so. There are issues upon which we cannot compromise. There are issues held dearly by every hon. Member upon which we cannot compromise, and we will not do so, because it would not be right and because the House would not permit us to do so. However, there are areas where compromise is appropriate in the interests of the outcome that we are seeking.
There are matters on which I have compromised and others have done the same. I am inviting others to take quite hard decisions also, and I hope that a combination of compromise and those hard decisions taken by people who have previously expressed views in a forceful way will enable us to reach a solution.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not essential for the British and Irish Governments to work closely together? Is it not unfortunate that some hon. Members take a different view about that?
On terrorist violence, did the Prime Minister notice the massive demonstrations against violence last weekend in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland? Apart from elections in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, do not those demonstrations show that the IRA does not speak with the authority of the Irish people, and that it is nonsense for some people outside the House to make a comparison with the middle east or elsewhere? The IRA is a minority within a minority within a minority, and it is a pity that the British and Irish Governments do not make that clear in the United States and many other places abroad.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are certainly correct. The terrorists are a minority within a minority. They do not represent a majority view in any part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and the Irish Government have expressed the same distaste for their campaign of terror that we have expressed repeatedly in the House.
We put an enormous amount of effort, in the United States and elsewhere, into making plain the majority view about the terrorists. Members of a number of democratic parties—certainly members of the Ulster Unionist party, members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and members of the British Government—have all been to the United States in the very recent past on more than one occasion to set before the opinion formers and the public in the United States what the majority view is in the United Kingdom about the activities of the IRA. I think that that is beginning to make some progress, and I hope that it will continue. I believe that the same attitude will be taken by members of the Irish Government as well.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. We shall now move on.

BILLS PRESENTED

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (RESIDUAL LIABILITIES)

Mr. Secretary Dorrell, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. John Horam, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision with respect to the transfer of liabilities of certain National Health Service bodies in the event of their ceasing to exist: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Secretary Sir George Young, supported by Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer and Mr. Steve Norris, presented a Bill to extend, and facilitate the exercise of, the powers of London Regional Transport to enter into and carry out agreements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

REGISTRATION OF DOMICILIARY CARE AGENCIES

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Ms Rachel Squire, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Tessa Jowell, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. John Gunnell and Mr. Kevin Hughes, presented a Bill to make provision for the registration of domiciliary care agencies; to make provisions consequential thereon; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CIVIL AVIATION

That the Civil Aviation Act (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 76) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 75) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

Government of Wales

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement of democracy in Wales; to establish a legislative Parliament elected by proportional representation in Wales; to secure a direct role for Wales in the institutions of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
As I follow what was a momentous statement, which we all hope will signify progress in Northern Ireland, I might say that if there had been a flexible approach 100 years ago, when the troubles of Ireland were so high on the political agenda, we might not today be faced with the difficulties in the six counties of the north of Ireland.
I introduce my Bill with mixed feelings. I feel satisfaction that I have been given time to introduce it, and, of course, satisfaction because of the importance of the issue, particularly as this is the 22nd anniversary of my election to the House, on 28 February 1974, and the closest opportunity to St. David's day. We had a Labour Government then, and it is a matter of great regret that they did not succeed in putting into operation a meaningful assembly or parliament for Wales and for Scotland.
I also feel some frustration. When I was first elected, I expected that a parliament for Wales would be set up fairly quickly. The recommendations of the Kilbrandon report in 1973 gave a certain credence to that. It will be 17 years ago this St. David's day that the ill-fated referendum on Labour's previous abortive effort on the matter took place. Had we established a powerful parliament for Wales in 1979, Wales would have avoided the worst excesses of the Thatcher decade. We have had four Secretaries of State for Wales since then—I am glad that the present Secretary of State is in his place to hear the debate—who have not represented Welsh constituencies. That has been an ignominy for Wales, and it could have been avoided.
Had we had a parliament for Wales in 1979, we would have avoided the disastrous policies of that decade: the poll tax; the cack-handed local government reorganisation that we are going through at the moment; water privatisation; the decimation of the national health service, particularly the dental service; and the creation of a two-tier education system in Wales, which we most certainly do not want.
For the past 17 years, Wales has been governed on the basis of the priorities of south-east England, not the priorities of the people of Wales. We have been governed by a Tory regime which was not elected by the people of Wales. Never in any election from 1868 onwards have the Conservatives held a majority of seats in Wales. Indeed, in some elections, they have not held any. Yet we have had Tory policies, for which we did not vote, thrust upon us. Recent examples of legislation forced on Wales include the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the Welsh Language Act 1993, which were dealt with by Committees of the House that were dominated by Conservatives from English constituencies, who did not know the background to the issues and did not have to live with the consequence of the legislation.
The very reason for having a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet has been undermined in recent years. He should be the authentic voice of Wales, articulating


the hopes of Wales as a nation, spelling out our fears, speaking up for our aspirations and our trepidations. Instead, we have a Secretary of State—whatever his abilities—who has never lived in Wales, has never faced the Welsh electorate in a general election and whose party was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls in Wales. Rather than an advocate for Wales, we have a salesman travelling the length and breadth of Wales as an apologist on behalf of the Cabinet.
We are governed in an outmoded colonial fashion, and it is high time that that came to an end. Furthermore, there is a total absence of Welsh representation in Brussels when the Council of Ministers discusses vital issues such as agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for England attends those discussions. The Secretary of State for Wales has never been there. Vital issues such as milk quotas and the sheepmeat regime are now determined in Brussels rather than in the House.
Likewise, Welsh industry and commerce has missed out by not having a voice in Brussels to get regional policies that suit our needs. We can compare the position in Wales with the successful deals that Ireland has succeeded in getting from the European Union, and the 6 per cent. growth rate that Ireland has obtained as a result. In terms of the accountability of the Welsh Office and its 80 quangos, the answerability of the Executive and the £7 billion budget of the Welsh Office, the formulation of legislation to meet Welsh needs and values, the voice of Wales in the Cabinet or the direct links between Wales and the European Union, the truth is that the present system of government has broken down and is not serving Wales. We do not have any meaningful democracy at the all-Wales level.
My Bill is a modest attempt to put that right. It would set up a directly elected democratic parliament for Wales. The lower chamber would consist of 100 Members elected by proportional representation, and the upper chamber would consist of two representatives from each of the unitary authorities in Wales. It would have full legislative power for all Welsh Office functions, including education, employment, housing, health, transport, arts, environment and agriculture. If I cannot carry certain Labour Members with me on the proportional representation part of my argument, I remind them that that is their proposal for a parliament for Scotland in due course.
The parliament would have control of the civil service, which is currently answerable to the Welsh Office. It would have full legislative responsibilities for all functions undertaken by the quangos in order to overcome the way in which the Tory Government succeed in getting their writs to run in  system of patronage, which is not acceptable to the people of Wales. The parliament would be funded initially by the current block grant plus some £25 million for administrative costs, but we hope that within three years there would be a Welsh Treasury Department, which would collect all the taxes arising from Wales.
The Bill does not present Plaid Cymru's ultimate aim of full self-government within Europe. We accept that we cannot go in one jump from the status quo of no national democracy to full independence, but we believe that, after five years of the government that we propose in the Bill, the people of Wales should be allowed, if they so wish,

the opportunity to decide by referendum on moving to self-government. However, that is not the proposal in the Bill. Under the Bill, there are functions that are not currently devolved to the Welsh Office and that should remain at Westminster: defence, foreign affairs, social security and certain trade matters.
The Secretary of State for Wales would remain, as, of course, would the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, under the Government's proposals for an elected legislative assembly for Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it is instructive that the Tories are prepared to yield such an assembly to Northern Ireland in the wake of the bombs and the bullets, but for those of us in Wales, who have pursued our politics through constitutional and democratic means, it appears that the Conservatives have nothing but a closed door.
If the Tories are consistent, they will accept my modest proposal. So will the Labour party, because it proposes a similar model for Scotland. If it is good enough for Scotland to have a law-making parliament, it is good enough for Wales too, and we demand that we should have one. The Liberal party, too, should support the idea because it at least pays lip service to the concept of an elected parliament or assembly for both Scotland and Wales.
I appeal to Members in all parts of the House to support the Bill. It would provide for a new partnership between the peoples of these islands, and bring an end to the monolithic centralism of Westminster's legislative dictatorship by allowing Wales to decide democratically for itself on all aspects of domestic policy. The Bill would give the people of Wales responsibility, opportunity, democracy and hope. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I oppose the Bill. What we have heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is the politics of socialism and defeatism, which we are so used to hearing from the Opposition, who love to run Wales down. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that Plaid Cymru remains committed to turning Wales into a republic, although there is no significant support for such a proposal in Wales.
The results of the 1992 general election in Wales show that Plaid Cymru mustered only 154,439 out of the 1,748,796 votes cast. That was a mere 8.8 per cent.—less than one third of the number of votes cast for the Conservatives, and less, even, than the number cast for the Liberals, who managed to win only one seat.
Even that very poor result for Plaid Cymru fails to reflect the lack of interest in nationalism in many parts of Wales. In Vale of Glamorgan, for example, Plaid Cymru  only in a very small part of Wales does that party represent the views of a substantial proportion of the Welsh electorate. Despite that poor mandate, Plaid Cymru has learnt nothing from the ballot box. It would still sacrifice the political and economic interests of Wales, which are best served by it remaining part of the United Kingdom.
Like Labour, Plaid Cymru wants more public spending, higher taxes and the centralisation of power, but it sets out its plans in the hope of concealing the full extent of the damage that it would do. The most damaging aspect of the party's policies is the plan to set up a Welsh


republic. At its conference at the end of October 1993, delegates overwhelmingly endorsed proposals to establish an independent Welsh republic. So the House will not be fooled by talk of a staged process. Clearly, the long-term objective of Plaid CyMru is to make Wales a republic within the European Community and the Commonwealth.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon can claim at least one merit for his speech; he was consistent. Unfortunately, he was consistently wrong. Most of the people of Wales do not want a Welsh republic. They realise, rightly, that the break-up of the United Kingdom would be bad for every part of it—bad for England, for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales.
Wales is an important part of the United Kingdom. The cross-fertilisation of ideas and the pooling of resources between the different countries that make up the United Kingdom strengthen us all. Wales is far stronger as part of the United Kingdom than it would be on its own.
The people of Wales are fairly represented at Westminster, especially as the average electorate in Welsh constituencies is significantly smaller than that in English ones. The people of Wales enjoy all the constitutional advantages enjoyed by UK citizens living in England, including the right to be defended by the British armed forces against external aggression.
In addition, we have our own Secretary of State for Wales, who has a strong voice in the Cabinet and at Westminster. Partly because of the way in which successive Secretaries of State for Wales have lobbied on our behalf, we enjoy a significant advantage over England in the amount of central Government financial support that we receive.
Even after the expected increase in council tax bills, we in Wales will still pay considerably less than our counterparts in England. I am sorry to have to spell that out, because right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent English constituencies may believe it unfair, especially now that, after 17 years of Conservative Government, the Welsh economy is doing so well.
We have benefited from massive inward investment, thanks in part to the Government's refusal to accept the social chapter. The social costs of labour are considerably lower in the United Kingdom than in our major European rivals, giving businesses in Wales a big advantage. The success of the Government's economic policies and of the Welsh Office in attracting investment to Wales has led to steady reductions in unemployment in Wales, which now, for the first time since records began, is down to the UK average.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon claims that his proposals are gradualist. In this week's edition of The House magazine, he has stated, as he did today, that
The first stage Parliament for Wales will have two chambers.
He also wrote:
The lower chamber will consist of 100 members … with 20 added members
but today he said that the lower chamber would have 100 members—two for each of the 40 constituencies, with 20 added. Whatever the exact figures are, such a parliament would be expensive.
Given the statistics that I have already revealed about Plaid CyMru's poor electoral performance, it is understandable that the hon. Gentleman should favour

proportional representation. However, nothing could justify having 100 or 120 Members of Parliament for a country the size of Wales. A good case can be made for the proposition that there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. The suggested 100 Members would be far too many for Wales, and would add considerably to the cost of such a parliament.
I note that both Welsh and English would be official languages of the new parliament, which would waste more money. If the proceedings were televised, the many people in Wales who cannot speak Welsh would be unable to understand the debates without subtitles.
The hon. Gentleman proposed a second chamber with two elected representatives from each local authority in Wales. That seems to me a recipe for muddle and waste. Furthermore, the proposal that the new parliament would take over all the present functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and of the quangos would deprive Wales of a voice in the Cabinet, and would cost a substantial sum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned £25 million as an additional subsidy from the Westminster Parliament. What would English Members say if they were invited to fork out £25 million to run an unwanted Welsh Government? Even worse, the new parliament's legislative capacity would drive a massive wedge between Wales and England. That would grow worse as the two legal systems diverged, creating discrepancies and anomalies across the boundary between the two countries, which would become a border.
The hon. Gentleman envisages that, for the first two years, the new parliament in Wales would receive a block grant based on the amount currently allocated for the transferred functions, plus the £25 million that I have already mentioned. How unfair and how unrealistic that Wales should expect to receive that huge subsidy for going its own way and setting up a parliament that even the people of Wales do not want.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposed parliament would have direct links with the European Union, which would weaken the negotiating position of the United Kingdom as a whole. He envisages that, during his proposed first stage, Wales would still send Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, but that they would be able to vote only on aspects of policy that had not been transferred to the Welsh Parliament. That might deal with the so-called West Lothian question, but it would mean that all Members representing Welsh constituencies would be semi-neutered part-timers, who would enjoy little respect or influence at Westminster.
The hon. Gentleman said that, after five years, the interim parliament would have the right to seek full self-government for Wales, and to take over the subjects previously reserved for Westminster, with a constitutional referendum as a so-called safeguard to protect the wishes of the people of Wales.
It is easy to see Plaid CyMru's not very well hidden agenda. It wants to neuter Welsh Members of Parliament at Westminster and then say, "We don't need them. Let's have a referendum and get rid of them." With respect, I must point out that we have already had a referendum in Wales, and it showed clearly that the people of Wales did not want devolution. When the implications of costs and of loss of influence at Westminster and in Brussels are taken into account, Plaid CyMru's views will be found to be just as irrelevant to the wishes of Wales as they were in 1992.
It would be wrong of me to conclude my speech opposing the Bill without stressing that the halfway house proposed by the Labour party is equally repugnant to me as a Conservative and a Unionist. As so often in the past, the Labour party is papering over its deep divisions on this issue to come up with a proposal—any proposal—designed to create the illusion of a workable policy. Labour's concessions to nationalism would imperil the United Kingdom's survival and should be rejected—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 73.

Division No. 62]
[5.30 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Canavan, Dennis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Tyler, Paul


Dafis, Cynog
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.


Marek, Dr John



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Barnes, Harry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard





Booth, Hartley
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brazier, Julian
Mills, Iain


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Cash, William
Pawsey, James


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Dunn, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Fabricant, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Forman, Nigel
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Stern, Michael


Gale, Roger
Stewart, Allan


Gallie, Phil
Sumberg, David


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Thomason, Roy


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tracey, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Harris, David
Viggers, Peter



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hawksley, Warren
Whitney, Ray


Hayes, Jerry
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Jessel, Toby
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey



Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Michael Stephen.


Mans, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I
understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 145), which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
We have precisely one hour and 20 minutes for this debate. I appeal to Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to make speeches that are shorter than those that they had planned. [Interruption.]

Mr. Kynoch: I applaud the sense of humour of Opposition Back Benchers.
The motions relating to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order and the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order state that they have not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Select Committee considered the original orders that were laid on 14 February at its meeting on Tuesday 20 February. Unfortunately, due to a mistake in the coming into force date, the instruments were withdrawn and were re-laid yesterday. The Select Committee will reconsider the amended orders at a future sitting, although I stress that their substance has not changed at all. I apologise to the House for any inconvenience that that may have caused and I am grateful to the members of the Select Committee for their assistance in this matter.
This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate local government finance. The debate takes place against the background of an unprecedented level of consultation and discussion about the settlement for the year ahead. In addition to the normal statutory consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I held a briefing in the House a week ago which was attended by many right hon. and hon. Members. During the past 24 hours, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I held a series of meetings with hon. Members from all parts of the House and with council representatives. I look forward to a lively and, I hope, informed debate.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: Because of the time, I should like to proceed and until I reach the substance of figures I will not give way.
I propose to speak briefly about the detail of each of the two orders and the report. The purpose of the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order is explained in detail in

the report which accompanies the order, but the position is relatively straightforward and I do not think that I need say much about the order. Under the so-called AEF—aggregate external finance—guarantee, the revenue support grant that is payable to local authorities for each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is adjusted either up or down in the light of any variation between their estimated and their actual level of non-domestic rate income. The order deals only with the two later years. We have agreed with COSLA that there is no need for any further adjustments of RSG in respect of 1990–91.
The objective of the guarantee, which was fully discussed and agreed with COSLA, is to ensure that each authority receives the combined amount of revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income that they were promised when they were first notified of their settlement for the year in question. At that stage my Department made an estimate of the non-domestic rate income that each authority would receive. The guarantee arrangement has been necessary because of the difficulty of estimating non-domestic rate income with any degree of accuracy—mainly because of appeals against valuation which take some time to resolve.
The order makes a further adjustment to the levels of RSG that are payable for each of the two years that are still covered by the guarantee in the light of returns that local authorities submitted to the Scottish Office last autumn of their actual rate income for the years in question. Because of the effect of successful appeals against 1990 valuations, in general there has been a reduction in rate income compared with previous estimates. Therefore, the order provides for the payment of extra RSG totalling just over £15 million to compensate for this reduction in rate income. Nearly £5.5 million of that amount relates to 1991–92 and the remaining £9.6 million relates to 1992–93. The total adjustment of just over £15 million is much reduced from that which was made 12 months ago, reflecting the fact that, as time passes, the non-domestic rate income for those years has tended to settle down.
I should make it clear that the figure of £15 million is net. Although most authorities will receive extra RSG, a few will receive less. That is because, against the general trend, their rate income has increased compared with previous estimates. Because we are dealing with the years 1991–92 and 1992–93, the RSG adjustments obviously relate to existing local authorities. Subject to the House approving the order, the adjustments will be made at the beginning of the new financial year and will obviously be taken into account in the closure of the accounts of the authorities concerned.
The House may wonder why the AEF guarantee related only to the three years from 1990–91 to 1992–93 and not to subsequent years. The answer is that, since the introduction of the arrangements for the pooling of business rate income from 1993–94, it has been possible to deal with fluctuations in the level of rate income administratively. However, exactly the same principle applies, namely, that local authorities do not lose out if the actual rate income is below the estimated amount.
I shall now turn to the notional amounts report. The report's purpose is to specify for each of the 21 new mainland councils an amount that will be their base line for considering any capping action this year. My right hon. Friend has power to cap an authority either when he considers that its budget is excessive in absolute terms or


when there has been an excessive increase in its budget compared with that for the previous year. In practice, the second of these powers—the power to control the year-on-year increase in spending—has been the basis of the capping regimes north and south of the border in recent years.
Obviously, the new mainland councils do not have actual budgets for 1995–96. However, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 made provision for my right hon. Friend to specify in a report to the House the amount for each new council which, in his opinion, should be used as a basis for comparison for capping purposes. That is the report which is under debate. In effect, it specifies notional 1995–96 budget figures for each of the new councils. It is important to stress that those figures have not been plucked out of the air in St. Andrew's house.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Oh yes they have.

Mr. Kynoch: They have not. They are the product of a great deal of consultation with and co-operation from COSLA and local authorities, especially the 10 disaggregating authorities. The overriding objective in producing the figures has been to ensure that they reflect as accurately as possible the planned level of expenditure in the current year by the old councils in each of the new council areas. In other words, it is the actual level of planned expenditure that the new councils will inherit from their predecessors. For councils in the aggregating areas, that was done by adding together the 1995–96 budgets of the relative regional and district councils. In the other areas it was, where appropriate, necessary for the old councils to disaggregate their 1995–96 budgets among the new council areas.
The disaggregation exercise was carried out in accordance with a set of detailed principles which are in annex 2 to the report. Those principles were fully discussed with and agreed by COSLA and the relevant local authorities. I pay tribute to the thorough and professional way in which each of the 10 disaggregating authorities has carried out the exercise of apportioning its 1995–96 budget to the new council areas.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the Minister accept that the cash increase between this year's notional budget and next year's budget for Scotland as a whole is roughly 1 per cent? In particular, does he accept that the increase for Edinburgh is 1 per cent. and not the 2.66 per cent. that he mentioned when I met him this morning, which includes community care transfers, the cost of local government reorganisation and other disregards? The key figure is 1 per cent. in cash terms, which is a massive real terms cut.

Mr. Kynoch: I do not accept that. I went through the argument with the hon. Gentleman this morning and I do not propose to go through the detail again because of time constraints.
Inevitably, there have been some local disagreements about the figures, but the Scottish Office has been in no position to second-guess the apportionments made by the disaggregating authorities. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) wants to intervene, I will happily give way to him.
The amount shown in annex 1 to the report for each of the new councils is a pretty true indication of what the outgoing councils plan to spend in each of the new council areas during the current financial year. Consequently, the amounts are a fair base line for the 1996–97 capping regime.
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996 represents the final stage of the local government finance settlement, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State first announced on 28 November. I gave the House details of the settlement last week when replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), but it is appropriate to repeat the figures.
The settlement provides for Government-supported expenditure to be set at a level of £6.168 billion. That is an increase of £136.9 million—or 2.3 per cent.—on the current year's figure after adjusting for transfers of responsibility between central and local government, so that a like-for-like comparison with the current year's settlement can be made. Hon. Members who attended the briefing session that I arranged last week will recall that Government-supported expenditure comprises provision for debt servicing costs and services. The provision for services is known as grant-aided expenditure.
The settlement also provides for aggregate external finance to be set at a level of just less than £5.369 billion. That is an increase of £148 million—or 2.9 per cent.—on the current year. That increase is £26.5 million more than the Barnett formula consequences of the English local government settlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have quite reasonably allocated that £26.5 million to other Scottish expenditure programmes, but instead it has been used to increase the local government settlement.
The AEF total comprises three elements. First, a little more than £417 million is estimated for specific grants. The great bulk of that figure is for a specific police grant. Secondly, the total includes the amount that is being distributed to local authorities from the non-domestic rate income pool, which totals a little more than £1.313 billion. Thirdly, the AEF total includes revenue support grant totalling nearly £3.639 billion.
The report that accompanies the order provides a very detailed explanation of its purpose, but it may be helpful to the House if I briefly summarise the position. The first and by far the main purpose of the order is to distribute the second and third components of the AEF total—non-domestic rate income and revenue support grant, to which I have just referred—among the 32 councils. Subject to the House approving the order, those amounts, which total nearly £4.952 billion, will be paid to the councils during next year.
The order does not deal with the distribution of the provision for specific grants. That is paid out in the light of claims during the year from councils. In distributing non-domestic rate income and revenue support grant, however, we make as good an estimate as we can of what each council will receive in specific grants.
The AEF total has been distributed among councils using exactly the same methodology as in previous years. That methodology is well understood and accepted by COSLA. There are two main stages to the distribution. The first stage is to equalise for differences in councils' need to incur expenditure as measured by their grant-aided


expenditure assessments. Those assessments are determined using the client group system that was first introduced in 1985 and is kept under regular review by the distribution committee comprising representatives from the Scottish Office and COSLA. A total of £1.863 billion is being distributed to equalise for differences in councils' GAE assessments.
The second stage is to equalise for differences in councils' tax base and consequently their ability to raise income locally from the council tax. A council with a low tax base obviously receives more AEF support than one with a high tax base. A total of £3.465 billion is distributed under that stage in proportion to the number of band D-equivalent properties in each council area.
The second purpose of the order is to make a number of relatively minor changes to the 1995–96 AEF figures. First, the order increases by relatively small amounts the level of AEF payable to two local authorities—Kirkcaldy district council and East Kilbride district council, both of which have taken on additional housing benefit responsibilities.
The order also transfers £162,000 of AEF for 1995–96 from East Kilbride district council to Eastwood district council. That corrects an error in the population data used in the original 1995–96 distribution for those two councils, stemming from the transfer of the Busby area from East Kilbride to Eastwood.
The order redetermines the level of AEF for all the existing authorities, to take account of an increase in the City of Aberdeen district council's share of the support for loan and leasing charges. COSLA has been fully consulted and has agreed all the changes in the 1995–96 AEF distribution.
The final purpose of the order is to redetermine the levels of AEF for 1993–94 and 1994–95 taking into account changes in the council tax base of each existing authority. Those changes arise because of, for example, successful appeals by householders regarding the tax band of their property.
I should add that for 1994–95 only, the order also increases by £2,000 the level of AEF payable to the Western Isles islands council.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Now that the Minister has had the opportunity to go through Glasgow council's books in detail, does he think that a 36 per cent. increase in council tax is acceptable? Does he understand why that 36 per cent. increase is necessary unless he takes action?

Mr. Kynoch: For a start, I have not had a chance to go through Glasgow council's complete figures. Despite meeting Glasgow council members this morning, I have yet to hear a proper explanation of why, with a notional budget of about £800.1 million and a capping limit of £839.5 million—an increase in funding of about 4.93 per cent. that the council could spend and remain within its capping limit—they are talking about cuts. At this stage, they are talking about the budget being 13.4 per cent. up on the notional budget.
I have explained how notional budgets were prepared. They were prepared by the disaggregation of Strathclyde regional council's regional budget to the Glasgow area. We then added the district budget, and obviously transfers of responsibility were taken into account. The new

Glasgow city council is at the moment talking about a budget increase—clearly it has not yet set a budget, so I urge it to set a responsible budget—of 13.4 per cent. When one takes it into account that all wage increases should be funded from within by efficiency improvements and so on, as in the public sector, that 13.4 per cent. represents an enormous increase, given that inflation is running at less than 3 per cent. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) should go back and ask the councillors of Glasgow rather than me why they are proposing a budget that is almost five times the rate of inflation.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: I will not give way again to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Considering the way in which the agreement has been reached by the disaggregation of budgets, have my constituents not been disadvantaged to the benefit of Glasgow?

Mr. Kynoch: That is not quite correct. The transition scheme proposed by COSLA and accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me has made it possible for my hon. Friend's council to benefit during the transition this year. It will get one third of the mismatch benefit. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in the past Glasgow has benefited from some of the GAE that perhaps rightly should have been allocated to my hon. Friend's area. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In past years, Glasgow has enjoyed a heavier level of expenditure than the GAE formula justified. Clearly, that decision was taken by the councillors of Strathclyde and it is something with which Glasgow is now having to deal.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it was inadvertent, but the Minister misled the House. Glasgow council can explain, line by line, exactly what it is doing, but the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might like to rephrase what she is saying.

Mrs. Fyfe: Perhaps you did not hear me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did use the word "inadvertent". Nevertheless, the Minister misled—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a debating point; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Maryhill should debate these issues with the councillors of Glasgow city council and ask them to explain why their projected budget is so much above the notional budget prepared by the outgoing councils.
The changes to which I referred in relation to redetermining the level—

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. At our meeting last night he hung on to notional budgets like a drowning man—it was the only thing he had to keep him afloat. Does he accept that, for example, a wage war for teachers would


cost Falkirk £2.4 million just to keep its teachers? Is he saying tonight that in—his words—the interests of efficiency savings, the council should cut the number of teachers and reduce education in Falkirk, so that it can keep within the notional budget that he is demanding it meets? Is the Minister even listening?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman referred to a teachers' settlement. I am not aware of the teachers having even started, let alone completed negotiations. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. The points I made about notional budgets are valid. I explained to the House how the budgets were prepared.
As I was saying, the changes to which I have referred in relation to redetermining the levels of AEF for 1993–94 and 1994–95 arise, for example, because of successful appeals by householders regarding the tax band their property should be in. I should add that for 1994–95 only, the order also increases by £2,000 the level of AEF payable to the Western Isles islands council. That is an increase in the amount being paid to the council to enable it to subsidise the costs of internal air travel, following the introduction of the air passenger tax in 1994.
I should make it clear to the House that COSLA has been consulted about the two orders and the report under consideration, but has made no comment on the detail of them. Despite the reaction from the Opposition parties and from COSLA, there is no doubt that Scottish local authority current expenditure was treated very generously in the 1995 public expenditure survey. AEF has been increased by £26.5 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement and is no less than 43 per cent. per head of population higher than the level for English authorities and 21 per cent. higher than the level for Welsh authorities.
Spending provision for Scottish authorities is 30 per cent. higher per head of population than the provision for English authorities and 22 per cent. higher than the provision for Welsh authorities. It is no wonder that local authorities in both England and Wales are envious of the level of funding for Scottish local government.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: Opposition Members have been complaining about the time that I am taking, but I have tried to give way to hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
The Opposition and COSLA argue that a further £395 million should be provided for Scottish authorities, but we have yet to hear which other programmes in the Scottish Office block should be cut to provide that extra funding. It is senseless to argue for extra money on top of the significant increase that we have made and at a time of tight public expenditure—and unless Opposition Members can say where that money should come from.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not give way as I want to leave sufficient opportunity for Back-Bench Members to participate in the debate.
It has also been argued that extra help should be provided to particular councils, but we have yet to hear which councils should receive less in order to provide more for others. We have yet to hear why virtually all of the new councils claim that they need to increase spending by well over 10 per cent. next year when inflation is below 3 per cent. and likely to go even lower during the next 12 months.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Rubbish.

Mr. Kynoch: I hear the hon. Gentleman, but the difference between my party and his party is that mine actually recognises that we must control expenditure because it is taxpayers' funds that we are using. To give 3 per cent. extra funding to local government at a time when others are taking cuts is a more than reasonable settlement.
I should like to think that during the debate the House will receive answers from the Opposition to the three questions I posed. If the questions are not answered, any criticism of the settlement will be entirely hollow. The truth is that Scottish local government is very generously funded and I commend the two orders and the notional amounts report to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: This is a scandalously short time to debate something so critical to Scottish local government. It is disgraceful that the debate is being squashed into such a short time. Another disgraceful aspect of the debate is that the Secretary of State was not at the Dispatch Box. Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales presented the revenue support grant orders for Wales. Before that, the Secretary of State for the Environment did so for England. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Scotland stood at the Dispatch Box and defended his position—but not this Secretary of State today. He did not even do so at Scottish questions this afternoon. He sidelines the issue because he knows how embarrassing it is for him. It brings to mind that old Glasgow expression, "We want the engineer, not the sweat rag."

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): When will the hon. Gentleman treat the House seriously? He knows that the debate has been squeezed because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on Northern Ireland. He also knows that we will have a debate in Scotland on Monday, in the Grand Committee, when I will be happy to open the debate and the hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to speak. Why does not he address the issues instead of making silly points?

Mr. Robertson: If there was a world competition for silly points, the right hon. Gentleman would win. I do not deny that the Northern Ireland statement was important, but the Government determine the business before the House and the amount of time we have for this debate is inadequate. It is the right hon. Gentleman who does not take the House seriously. This is the third major debate on Scotland since Christmas. One was on the effects of the winter, on a motion for the Adjournment on a Wednesday morning. It was the junior Minister who attended that debate. Then there was a debate on the


privatisation of water, but the Secretary of State was absent. This is the third debate, but still he was not at the Dispatch Box answering for what is happening—

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman really does take the biscuit. He is criticising me for not answering an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning—something traditionally done by a junior Minister—when he did not attend the Grand Committee to debate law and order and other serious issues. He boasts about winding up a debate on water privatisation as it affects England. I confine my activities to looking to Scotland's interests in Scotland. It is the hon. Gentleman who, at every opportunity, has run away from debates on Scottish issues in the Grand Committee. If he wants an opportunity to debate today's subject with me, he will get it on Monday.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to local government finance now, please.

Mr. Robertson: That is what we hoped to hear the Secretary of State speaking about, but he did not even speak about it at Scottish questions today. There is genuine anger and outrage in Scotland about what is happening to local authorities. Some 40,000 people were on the streets of Edinburgh over the weekend to make their point known. They expect someone who claims to be Scotland's man in the capital to give an explanation, rather than to have the sandbagging performance of a junior Minister who just repeats the same script, irrespective of the facts.

Mr. Kynoch: rose—

Mr. Robertson: Come on, the Minister took 22 minutes.

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the facts that I quoted during the debate, will he once and for all tell the House where he would find the £395 million and how much he would give to local government should he ever be in power?

Mr. Robertson: Although he is only a very junior member, the Minister is currently in the Government. If he will tell me where they found £1.5 billion of public money to waste on railway privatisation, I will tell him where we will find money for vital front-line services.
The problem with this debate is quite simple: it is whether we can ever again believe Ministers in this Government. It was demonstrated on Monday, after the Scott report, that one Minister misled the House on 37 occasions on a vital—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What on earth has this to do with local government finance in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has everything to do with it because, this evening, we have to believe the Minister. It goes to the root—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not go to the root of anything. Let us keep to the debate that is before us—local government finance, Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Scottish Office Ministers expect to be believed about the revenue support

grant order. They spew out figures, like some demented bingo machine, but no one believes them in Scotland, nor should they be believed. Believing that Scottish Office Ministers are telling the truth about local government finance amounts to calling Councillor John Young, the Tory leader of Glasgow city council, a liar. He was in London today to make a case to the Government about the problems that have been inflicted on Glasgow by Tory Ministers, and he is not a liar.
To accept that Ministers are telling us the truth about local government finance would mean making a liar out of Councillor Tom Hogg, the Conservative leader on the new Borders council, who was quoted in The Scotsman on 31 January as
expressing his disgust at a package of 30 education spending cuts forced on the authority by Scottish Office expenditure limits.
Councillor Hogg, who said that he could not change the mind of the Secretary of State, is not a liar.
To accept that the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is being truthful today means saying that Tory, Labour, Liberal and SNP councillors all over Scotland have invented a crisis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time—

Mr. James Wallace: He never said anything like—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called this evening, he must listen. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might like to withdraw what he has just said. There was a double negative on "is it truthful" or words to that effect—[Interruption.] Order. The Chair rules on these matters.

Mr. Robertson: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am simply saying that we have two sets of people to believe—the Minister or a set of councillors from all parties, including the Conservative party. If Ministers are telling the truth, those people are inventing a crisis in Scotland. I do not believe that they are inventing a crisis. We would have to believe that those councillors are conspiring to cut schools, homes and community centres and to increase council tax by five times the rate of inflation. We would have to believe that they are doing all that simply to embarrass the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Is anyone expected to believe that all that pain, all those threatened jobs and all the agonised judgments of Solomon that have been made in almost every council before next Tuesday are, in Sir Michael Hirst's words, simply to force the Government "on to the defensive"? The fact is that we do not believe—

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I genuinely want to spare some time for other hon. Members in this debate, but I have already given way twice to a highly intemperate and very excitable Secretary of State. Ministers in this damaged and discredited Government may have great difficulty in separating truth from untruth, but the Scottish people do not have that difficulty. They know that, whatever


propaganda, spin or mirrors are used on the manipulated figures, there is a crisis in local government, that the 23rd Tory tax increase will go on to their council tax bills and that they will have to pay more to get less.
During the next three years, central Government will take another £500 million out of local government. On council tax, that is the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax, and the local taxpayers will have to stump up that cash. This year, every independent expert agrees that a crisis has been induced by the Government in Scottish local government. In Scotland on Sunday, Claire Monaghan, one of the most respected experts in Scottish local government and academic life, from Strathclyde university, was asked about the Government's figures. She said:
In real terms there has undoubtedly been a decline.
When she was asked whom to blame, she said:
Central Government. Not just the current administration but those in office throughout the 1980s.
What does Prof. Arthur Midwinter, whom the Government are prone to quote often, say about the Government's views on local government? He said:
The present crisis results from the cumulative effect of the Government's squeeze on spending, and assumptions about the cost of local government reorganisation …
The Conservatives present themselves as the party of sound finance, but their record in local government is one of fiscal incompetence.
Those are the words of Prof. Midwinter, not of representatives of Labour-controlled local authorities.
How dare this gang of Ministers peddle the distortion that there is no problem and that councils have much more money to spend? The Government cannot tell the difference between truth and untruth and have completely lost the ability to distinguish between propaganda and fact. Last week, Sir Michael Hirst sent a letter out asking people to spy on local councils throughout Scotland. In his briefing, he said:
Every council will have the scope for an increase of at least 2 per cent. in its budget and most 2.5 per cent.
That is a fantasy, rivalled only by the famous words, "The guidelines have not been changed."
Tory propaganda says that Government support to local authorities is to be increased next year by £148 million, but the truth—the whole truth—is completely different. Councils must operate on real cuts in financing and not on the rich manure of propaganda. The Secretary of State said that there is £148 million extra this year—but there are some deductions. The first deduction is caused by inflation, which is now rising at 2.9 per cent. So, even on the Government's own figures, there is no real increase at all. We must then deduct the £39 million of transfers from the Department of Social Security, and then all the new priority needs that have been imposed on councils. Finally, and most important of all, we must deduct the huge cost of the botched local government reorganisation that was forced on Scotland.
Ministers say that the reorganisation will save £30 million a year. The reality is that it will cost £200 million in next year, and another £200 million in the next two years. That is a reorganisation tax of £200 million, and there is nothing to show for it. That is why the

Government's statistics are misleading—they are designed to mislead the public. That is why, when the Secretary of State cries "more money", he means less money. That is why, when the blame lies with him and his Ministers, he passes the buck and blames local councils for the damage that will be done.
Instead of 2 per cent. increases in budgets, as they were promised, people will see schools closing, community centres shutting, old folks' homes closing, charges going up and social services being stretched. Community facilities are now at a premium. The stark reality behind the propaganda, which has been paid for by our rates and taxes, is that we pay more and get much less.
Of course Ministers ask us—they have to ask us—where they are going to find the extra money. I tell them: do not ask where the money is coming from but ask where it has gone to. They have always found money for their own pet schemes and obsessions, never mind the money spent on a botched reorganisation. What about the money that was spent on Health Care International and poured down the drain? What about the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been squandered on rail privatisation and on NHS bureaucracy? What about the billions of pounds that were wasted and squandered on the poll tax—the Secretary of State's brainchild?
It is funny how the Government can find £9 million for the assisted places scheme to prop up the private school sector in Scotland while cash is short for front-line services, such as schools and social services. They can find £30 million for a nursery voucher scheme which nobody in Scotland wants, while quality local government nurseries are savaged by the cuts. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government found £89 million for the water quangos and managed to reschedule—

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No. The Minister can answer at the end of the debate.

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I am not giving way; there is not enough time. The Minister will be able to answer in his winding-up speech. I assume that he wants time to wind up; perhaps he would like to give another plausible explanation.
Some £700 million was wiped off the capital debt of the new water quangos. The Government can always find cash for their dogma, for their political playthings and for their waste, but they plead poverty when it comes to the vital services on which whole communities depend.
This year's settlement for local government in Scotland is a disgrace and a sad start for the new councils, which the Government wished on Scotland but could not capture for their own party. The people of Scotland are being punished for the lamentable political failure of the Conservative party last year. That is an act of cynical betrayal which will not be forgiven by the people of Scotland.
It is not too late for the Government to redeem themselves, and it is not too late for them to look again at the truth and the misery behind the partial and selective use of the figures with which they play. It is not too late for Ministers, who sit giggling and laughing on the Front


Bench while people outside face the cuts that they will impose, to watch the trail of misery for which they are responsible, to recognise the damage that they have done and to change. It is not too late for the Government to change their mind and they should start doing so tonight.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked where the money had gone. My speech is about social work and in particular about funding for care in the community. I hope that I shall go some way towards answering some of the questions.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to seek an explanation of the cost models that have been created by social work departments throughout Scotland. Social work departments control almost every avenue of inquiry and make it extremely difficult for meaningful data, such as their expenditure arrangements, to leave their control. How do they spend the money allocated?
My understanding is that social work throughout Scotland received a real increase in 1994–95 of more than 44 per cent.; the amount went up from £110 million to £158.3 million in Department of Social Security transfer moneys. Over and above that, the health boards are making almost £40 million a year available to local authorities. Did the social work departments, through their policies, influence how the money was spent? How have they been monitored? Can they demonstrate due economy and efficiency in their use of financial resources? Do they abuse their power?
A Tayside region social work committee meeting on 23 November 1995 considered a report on community care implementation. At that meeting, the director of social work sought council approval for a joint venture agreement with the Church of Scotland—incidentally, in my constituency. Ostensibly, the venture concerned the provision of dementia care.
It should be noted that the director, Mr. Bates, had previously put it to the social work committee, in item 3 from report No. 1550/95, that the regional authority should turn down the opportunity to purchase dementia care services from the private sector at costs beginning at only £195 per week. Mr. Bates stated that the £195 gross was
not financially advantageous to the council.
The council accepted Mr. Bates's recommendation and turned down the £195 per week option.
In appendix 1 of report No. 1554/95, Mr. Bates states that the running costs for the joint venture agreement option are £423 per week per place provided. He also advises that the cost does not include any element of capital cost. In paragraph 2 of item 2, he says:
In recognition of this background the Church of Scotland and the Social Work department have been working jointly on the refurbishment of Belmont Castle Residential Home for Older People"—
in my constituency—
in a project whose capital costs have been fully met by the church.
It appears, however, that Mr. Bates may have failed to identify to the members of the social work committee the fact that the Belmont Castle home appears to belong to Dundee city council, which has leased it to the Church of

Scotland. Furthermore, the money for the refurbishment came from the taxpayer via a grant from Scottish Homes, at an apparent cost of about £60,000 per bed.
In making his submission, Mr. Bates would seem to be ignoring his own advice. He stated in the press on 30 November 1995:
The fact of the matter is that we are now involved in quite extensive rationing of a number of the services we provide in Tayside … the fact of the matter is that we cannot spend pound notes that we have not got.
Furthermore—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will enjoy the rest of this. Mr. Bates states that
it was my decision to introduce rationing … and that means making tough choices.
Consequently, Mr. Bates is responsible for and should be held accountable for the following. The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the order. I hope that he will do that very quickly.

Mr. Walker: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks relate directly to the order because the claim being made throughout Scotland, by Mr. Bates and others, is that the order is inadequate. He claims that he cannot fund the project he has in hand. I have to look at the projects he has in hand so that we can assess whether his claim in genuine.
The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been more or less completed. That is a serious point, because if the funding came from Scottish Homes, as it appears to have done, there would have been a requirement for an endorsement by Tayside regional council before the funds could be approved by Scottish Homes.
How can Mr. Bates possibly justify recommending the joint venture option with the Church of Scotland as it costs 216 per cent. more per bed to support than the option he could purchase from the open market? The joint venture project provides only eight registered beds and 20 unregistered beds in the form of tenancies. I suggest that that is a manoeuvre, creating an unregistered environment for people who have definite care needs and who will deteriorate.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I will not give way because of the time restriction.
I have reams of evidence of other matters to do with Tayside region social work department which affect my constituency. Because of that—

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is addressing specific points to Mr. Peter Bates. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to turn up at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs this morning, he could have put those points directly


to Mr. Bates, who has been in the Palace of Westminster today to give evidence. The hon. Gentleman was not there. Perhaps he should get in touch with Mr. Bates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an interesting point of information, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is fairly obvious that Opposition Members do not want to know how and where the money was spent, despite what the hon. Member for Hamilton said.
I understand that there have been failures to use funds wisely in Argyll and Bute and in Fife, and I shall send my right hon. and hon. Friends a detailed dossier on the matter. In Tayside, the Perth and Kinross care manager service is having problems because it claims that the funding allocated by the orders will be inadequate. Yet the Association of Nursing Homes in Tayside, an organisation advising the Perth and Kinross care manager service, took minutes at a meeting—I will not bore the House with the details of the minutes, but I do have them—at which the care managers said that they were not bothered about the law or about accountability because the regional council's social work department had the power to do what it thought was right, regardless of the law or of financial constraints.
We are debating the matters tonight against a background of misinformation that is based largely on notional budgets and on the gross mismanagement by social work departments—particularly in Tayside—of community care. That failure is impacting on the most vulnerable people, who are least able to fight their case. Historically, social work has always demonstrated that its organisational culture is closed and defensive, and its bureaucratic and fragmented decision-making structure enables it largely to disregard operational outcomes. That state of affairs remains unchallenged because no effective avenue of accountability exists. I hope that the orders and the new councils will provide that avenue of accountability. It should not be forgotten that social work was the lead agency responsible for the Cleveland, Rochdale, Ayrshire and Orkney debacles concerning the forced removal of children from their homes.
The key manoeuvre that social work departments employ to avoid accountability is their collective case management approach, which advocates the virtues of multidisciplinary contributions and collective responsibility. That means that it is almost impossible for an individual social work representative to be made accountable for his actions. The real issues facing us tonight are the notional budgets set by the new councils and the basis on which they were set, how moneys were spent in the past and how moneys in the present budget are to be allocated. I welcome the opportunity to have those matters properly addressed.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said, but, in common with most of humanity, I do not have a clue what he was talking about.
I should begin by drawing attention to the fact that I have a registered interest. I have attended debates on this subject for many years, and I must tell the Secretary of

State that this is the worst settlement that I can remember. It will certainly undermine local authority services, it is below the rate of inflation, and it will cost jobs.
In addition, the settlement will cut across the very plans that the Government have for local government, such as devolved school government, school transport safety, care in the community and the pressures on local authorities resulting from our aging population. The very things that the Government want to do will be undermined by the way in which they have dealt with the revenue support grant.
I want to speak about jobs this evening. The Secretary of State told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that he wants local government costs to match those in England, and indeed he drew a comparison with England at Question Time today.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Just for the record, I told COSLA nothing of the sort. I have heard a rumour that COSLA left the meeting and said that, but I pointed out that the grant was 44 per cent. higher per head than in England, and that expenditure in Scotland was 30 per cent higher. At no stage have I said that expenditure should be brought down to English levels. Had I thought that, I would not have fought so hard for a block that provides for 30 per cent. more expenditure per head in Scotland.

Mr. Hogg: I hear what the Secretary of State says, but the implications of what he said to COSLA and what he said in the House this afternoon are absolutely clear. He cannot escape the fact that he has been drawing comparisons with England. We have a different education system from England, and we have higher standards on class sizes. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that he constantly says that education is one of his priorities, but the truth is that he is not willing to provide the means for education.
We should not seek to emulate England in education. England's staffing figures provide a dubious comparison with those of Scotland, because there are more grant-maintained schools in England. [Interruption.] The Minister responsible for education, housing and fisheries, who is trying to make sedentary interventions from the Treasury Bench, has failed to persuade Scottish parents to adopt the opting-out system. We all remember his brave speeches at Christmas, but he has failed to deliver the policy objective of the Secretary of State.
The fact that there are more contracted-out functions in the English education system means that staffing figures are distorted. In any event, we have every right to assert our separate education system. Indeed, we have a constitutional right to a different education system, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to defend that. But he is not doing so with the revenue support grant, because he is financially undermining the education system.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, but I have been asked by, among others, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for whom I have great respect—not to take up too much time, and I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Scottish spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, is hoping to speak.
The Secretary of State inherited the local government reorganisation, and I do not blame him for that reorganisation. I blame the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was the architect of a system that is costing the council tax payer and the British taxpayer a great deal of money. Its structure is most unsuitable to the delivery of services in Scotland, and the shambolic situation that now exists is directly his responsibility.
The reorganisation was forced on an unwilling Scotland, and the result is that 4,500 employees—and probably more—will leave local government this year. More jobs will be lost because of the phasing of vacancies and temporary posts. These people are not bureaucrats—they work in front-line jobs, and include teachers, social work staff, library staff and so on.
Some 600 senior officers—persons employed in senior official jobs earning £42,000 or more—will be leaving local government. The new councils have streamlined their management structures, and have done their best to make new provisions. But the loss of experienced staff should worry the Secretary of State, and that is a part of the inheritance that has been handed to him by the hon. Member for Eastwood.
The Tories have created an enormous explosion in the number of bureaucrats in the health service, so they are not in a position to lecture local government administrators and management. That is impudence on the part of the Government, but they constantly denigrate local government and its officers, and they constantly say that local government is top-heavy with officials. The Government are deliberately curbing local government expenditure for reasons of which we are all very well aware.
We all know the objective of the cuts. The Secretary of State wants to be able to tell his Cabinet colleagues that he is making cuts to support the creation of a cut in direct taxation later in the year. That is all for the sake of trying to save the day for the Tory party before the next general election.
Thanks to the hon. Member for Eastwood and the Government, an attempt is being made to force uniformity of management and services on us. That is very different from what is required by local government. We have a diverse system of local government, thanks to the structure that has been introduced. The authorities are diverse in size. It is not possible to create similar management structures in every case. The Government are doing their usual trick of trying to impose centralism on everything.
The Scottish people, their councillors and those who work in local government day after day know that the Government's day is over. There is no doubt about it. There is no authority for what the Government do in Scotland. That is not the mandate argument of which we have heard so much over the years, but simply a fact.
In the elections to the new unitary authorities in April last year, the Government were heavily defeated. There are no Tory councillors to speak of in Scotland, and they do not control any authorities. The Government have no right to do what they are doing. We know that the Tory ranks are broken. Not a single Minister on the Treasury Bench tonight will serve in the next Parliament.

Sir Hector Monro: On a night when we have heard the tremendous news of the order for three new frigates from Yarrow in Glasgow, we ought to be full of good cheer instead of listening to the moaning and groaning of the Opposition, led by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
Local authority finance is an annual ritual. It is always the same, whatever Government are in power. In 1964–70 and 1974–79, there were equally contentious local government finance settlements. I was a councillor for 15 years, and I knew each year that we would face difficult decisions on reducing the budgets that we might like to set, to bring prudent housekeeping to the local authority.
The attitude of Opposition Members is that everything is always cut, cut, cut. We are really dealing with reductions in the budgets that local authorities would like to set if they had carte blanche. Those are the cuts we are talking about, not cuts by Government. The Government have been very reasonable in giving authorities an increase of 2.88 per cent. against 2.9 per cent. inflation. By and large, spending should about equate to what was spent last year, allowing for inflation.
The only major change this year is reorganisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has built in additional money for the transition. He rightly expects some financial savings from reorganisation. When we consider that, in my area, five councils have been reduced to one, we would expect a reduction in the administrative costs of the local authority, especially when aggregate external finance this year is virtually the same as last year. There is only a £500,000 difference in £152 million of grant from the Government.
The Opposition are not putting sufficient pressure on their local authorities to trim their budgets to what any prudent housekeeper would spend. [Interruption.] That is a statement of fact. Over the past 10 years, local authorities have increased their expenditure in real terms by 20 per cent. They have increased expenditure in real terms year by year. Until we get a balance far nearer to what is fair and prudent, we will have the same problem every year with local government finance.
We must consider the overall position. Roughly the same population requires the same services each year, yet, out of the blue, local authorities want to increase their expenditure far above the rate of inflation. Of course one would like to have marginal increases to improve services, housing and all the other aspects of local authority expenditure, but nothing like the 10, 20, 30, or 40 per cent. figures that are being thrown around the Chamber.
We have to consider the comparison between Scotland and England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the position that he took with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There is no question of bringing down expenditure to the level of England, but it is right to point out to councillors in Scotland that Government-supported expenditure in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher than in England, 22 per cent. higher than in Wales, and 70 per cent. higher in respect of capital expenditure. Those are facts. We are spending far more than we ought in Scotland on providing the services that we all want.
This is a difficult year, as the transition is made from the old authorities to the new. Now that we have achieved the changes, let us go forward with some positive


thoughts, rather than all the negatives that are being thrown out by the Opposition. We want the new streamlined councils to work, to be more economical in their use of financial resources, to provide the services we want, and to develop the housing and social aspects of their duties.
All in all, we want positive development and not the continual moaning of the Opposition that it is not possible to achieve anything. Of course it is possible to achieve things. I bet that, when council taxes are set, they will be much less than the figures bandied about in the Chamber tonight.

Mr. James Wallace: I was astounded to hear the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) say that we are talking about mythical cuts to wish lists. When schools close, real schools are involved; when staff are laid off, real people lose their jobs. The cuts are real, and they will be laid at the door of the Conservative Government.
It may well be that local authorities wish to spend more on repair and maintenance of school buildings. When there is a £500 million backlog of school building repair and maintenance work, it is not unreasonable that they should wish our children to be taught in decent surroundings. That may be a cut to a wish, but it has real effects on the young people who have to study in those buildings.
This debate takes place against a background of cuts in services, proposed increases in council tax and staffing reductions. Although the Minister has been trotting out the same line week after week and it has been clearly shown that his figures are a gloss, he has no new song to sing.
The Minister says that a £148 million increase has been given to local authorities. Of that, £40 million is the cost of reorganisation. When the Secretary of State and the Minister say that they have managed to get £26.5 million more than the equivalent under the Barnett formula that applies to local government in England, it ignores the fact that that sum is £13.5 million less than they say is necessary for local government reorganisation. There has been no local government reorganisation in England and Wales except for two or three councils in England. Some £39.5 million is being transferred from social security to care in the community. They want a £44 million increase for the police, a £13 million increase for fire services and £500,000 for the district courts. If we add all that up, we are left with £11 million for everything else. The Government are supposed to be keen on education. If we assume that education spending represents half the overall budget, they have provided an extra £5 million for the whole of Scotland.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is it not incredible that, today of all days, the Government should announce an increase of £2.12 million, or 17 per cent., for the assisted places scheme, when council education is deteriorating across Scotland?

Mr. Wallace: The people of Scotland will note that a substantial sum is being given to a relatively small number of pupils, when the vast majority are suffering from education cuts.
In the highlands and islands, both the chief constable and the chief firemaster believe that even the amount that the Government think should be spent will not provide adequate services. The Government blame local authorities, but the people of Scotland have seen through that. The Government have blamed the outgoing authorities for spending reserves, although those authorities have often been encouraged to do so—and, in any event, that would be an explanation of, rather than a solution to, the problems faced by the new authorities.
The Minister did not deal properly with the point that I raised at Question Time. I salute the islands authorities for managing to control council tax increases. In some cases, they merely kept pace with inflation; the Western Isles increase was only 5 per cent. Many cuts in services or increases in charges have been made, affecting care centres in the islands. Unlike mainland Scotland, however, the islands have not had to contend with reorganisation. That is the cause of a substantial proportion of the council tax increases—£40 million, we hear.
According to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1994, the transitional costs were expected to be between £120 million and £196 million, and would be offset by on-going savings of between £22 million and £66 million per annum. I accept that not all the transitional costs will be incurred in the first year, but I think it fair to say that they will be front-loaded in the first year. The savings will come later. Even on the basis of the figures given by the Government at the time they published the Bill, £40 million is wholly inadequate to meet local authorities' costs.
I suspect that, privately, the Secretary of State is furious with his predecessor, who persuaded the Treasury—not that it probably needed much persuasion; no doubt it clapped its hands in glee—that the changes in Scottish local government could be funded from the block grant. That defied history: I do not think that savings have ever been possible in a local government change.
The Secretary of State challenges the Opposition parties to say where savings can be made in the block grant. At the weekend, he said in a speech at Banchory, quoted in the Aberdeen Press and Journal,
Councils are undoubtedly feeling the strain of reorganising themselves".
They did not want the reorganisation; it was forced on them. Having obliged councils to undergo reorganisation, the Government should do what they did following the debacles of the poll tax and the revaluation of 1985.
The Government should go to the Treasury and secure an amount that will allow local authorities to meet reorganisation costs and save the Scottish people from the service cuts and council tax increases that will otherwise be inevitable. The Government are imposing more cuts and more taxes in a vain attempt—a last desperate throw of the die—to cling to office.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I have just four minutes in which to speak. I shall do so as briefly as I can, so that others can speak as well. I do not wish to speak briefly, however; there is much to be said.
The debate may be an annual ritual, but this one is different. In the past, there has been much talk of cuts, but these cuts are for real, and will affect local authorities


in the future. Cuts that began in 1976, under Denis Healey, have now run their course, but, as I have said, these cuts are for real, and once they have been implemented there will be no going back on them. The Government's 2.6 per cent. increase for local authorities is really only a 1 per cent. increase; given inflation, it represents a cut. We shall end up with the worst of all possible worlds. The council tax will inevitably rise, as will local charges, and services will be reduced.
Even a financially prudent authority such as Angus could not remain within the Government's cap—even with a standstill budget. The Government propose to take £9 million out of its local economy, which will increase unemployment, reduce services and affect local businesses. The policy on capital receipts and capital from revenue, which has halved the amount that the authority would otherwise receive, will inevitably have that result, which will be mirrored throughout the country.
Central Government now dominate local authorities, which are not allowed to set their own budgets or determine their policies according to local need. Central Government determine their priorities for them. The Secretary of State has told them which core services will be given more resources; within a fixed budget, that means cuts in every other service.
There is no new money for the police, fire services, education or any other service. The Government have financed those services by taking 4.9 per cent. out of every other service budget. That means that every other council service budget will be cut not just by the Secretary of State's 4.39 per cent., but by an additional 3 per cent. for inflation. The real cuts amount to some 7.39 per cent.
The Government's way of running local authorities is to force the departments dealing with social work, libraries, roads, infrastructure and other services to cut 7.39 per cent. from their budgets. All that is deliberate, calculated Conservative Government policy. Central Government have set capping and revenue levels, and determined revenue spending patterns and priorities. They have set capital levels, capital-from-revenue levels and end use of capital-from-sales revenues. Central Government now run local authorities: there is no longer an independent local democratic service. The Government have a cheek to claim that they are giving local authorities more power.
Central Government now rigidly fix the total amount of local authority revenue, and thereby local services. Every unnecessary school closure, every unnecesary rent rise, every unnecessary increased charge—all the inevitable consequences of the order that we are discussing—will stand firmly at the door of the Conservative party. This is not a budget for Scotland's democratic local authorities; it belongs to the Conservative party.
The Conservatives can run now, but they cannot for ever hide from the electorate. They will surely get their come-uppance when the people of Scotland have the chance to judge them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kynoch: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Settle down. The Minister does not need the leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "He does."] Order. I have ruled that he does not.

Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the few seconds that I have left—

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it does not arise from my earlier decision. If it does, there is no point in the hon. Gentleman's raising it.

Mr. Foulkes: A number of my hon. Friends representing certain parts of the country have not had an opportunity to speak. The Minister took 25 minutes to introduce the debate. Is it not unfair for him to be allowed to reply? He will not actually reply; he will make party political points, as he did at the outset. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I have already ruled that the Minister does not need the leave of the House.

Mr. Kynoch: We have heard nothing constructive from the Opposition. That is typical. None of them has recognised that an extra £148 million has been put into local government, and that Scottish local government is being given significantly more than the rest of the United Kingdom. They are trying to shield their local councillors, who are spending and spending taxpayers' money.
All we have heard from the Opposition parties was outlined earlier in the week. It is clear that they want to increase taxation. They want to do away with compulsory competitive tendering and remove capping. They want to remove the uniform business rate from central Government and take it back to local government—and local businesses know what that will mean: increased costs. However, it is consistent with everything that Labour Members have said.
I posed the following questions to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): where would he find the funding? How would he find the funding? What would the funding be under Labour? He has not answered those questions. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 252.

Division No. 63]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Sir Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick





McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spring, Richard


Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stem, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Allan


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Wallace, James


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian



Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Sir Michael
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Gary Streeter.


Sims, Roger





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry



Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)






Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Byers, Stephen
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hodge, Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cann, Jamie
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Macdonald, Calum


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
MacShane, Denis


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michael, Alun


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)





Mowlam, Marjorie
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Hara, Edward
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pearson, Ian
Straw, Jack


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trickett, Jon


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Wright, Dr Tony


Simpson, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Joe Benton.


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 145), which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Mr.Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Doubtless you will have seen on the tapes that the divorce of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales has been formally announced, which will be greeted with great sadness in this House and by our constituents. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Government for a statement on that matter. It is important and we should hear the facts in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no such request. It is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
As the House knows, this is the annual opportunity for us to debate the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Orders. Traditionally, the debate provides an opportunity to consider, not only the detail of the orders, but wider issues relating to housing and housing finance. I propose to speak briefly to the orders and make some general comments on matters relevant to them. In that way, I hope that the debate can move forward.
I start with the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996. As was the case last year, a variation order is necessary because of a reduction in the pool rate of interest used to estimate local authorities' loan charges. It is accepted practice for Ministers to propose a variation order in those circumstances. That will reduce slightly the total housing support grant payable in 1995–96, from £23.3 million to £23 million.
For most authorities, the reduction in grant will be marginal. The reduction should not cause too many difficulties for authorities, as the lower level of interest charges should be reflected in lower loan charge expenditure within authorities' housing revenue accounts.
The draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996 provides that the total level of housing support grant payable to Scottish local authorities in 1996–97 will be £19.4 million. Grant for mainstream council housing will be paid to four authorities—Aberdeenshire, Highland, Shetland and Western Isles. Broadly speaking, the grant represents the amount that the authorities need to avoid a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. The assumptions used in calculating the amount of grant are explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.
As in previous years, the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order includes an element—the hostels portion—that helps meet part of the running costs of local authority hostels for the homeless. Hostels grant of £3.1 million will be paid to 21 authorities throughout Scotland and will help to support more than 2,300 places for homeless persons, particularly those who are roofless.
The general portion of housing support grant has declined steadily since the early 1980s, in line with the Government's policy of moving away from indiscriminate subsidies, such as HSG, and targeting resources towards tenants most in need, through the housing benefit system. Very few Scottish authorities now need the financial support of HSG to balance their housing accounts.
Individual tenants have not been forgotten, however. Help for them is made available through housing benefit. In 1994–95, council house tenants in Scotland who were unable to afford the full cost of their housing received

rent rebates totalling almost £620 million. Housing benefit is better able to help those in real need than an indiscriminate subsidy such as HSG.
In 1996–97, the housing element of HSG will reduce to £16.4 million, from £19.3 million in 1995–96. There are two main reasons for the reduction. First, as interest rates continue to fall, housing loan charges are expected to increase only marginally in 1995–96. Secondly, local government reorganisation, with the merger of a number of smaller councils, has the effect of reducing the need for grant.
On the assumptions used in the 1996–97 grant calculations, the estimate of management and maintenance expenditure is based on an assumed average spending level of £771 per house, which represents a 3 per cent. increase on the current year—an increase that is more than the current rate of inflation.
If some local authorities want to provide a higher level of service and spend more on management and maintenance, that is their decision. For the purpose of HSG formula, the assumed average standard rent for next year has also been increased by 3 per cent., to £38.60 per week. That is not a forecast, a guideline or a recommendation; it is an assumption used for the grant calculation. Over the years, the actual rents charged by councils have varied from that sum according to decisions made locally about planned levels of housing income and expenditure. In the current year, the average local authority rent in Scotland is £28.78, well below levels in England, where the average is £38.31. How much to charge in rent is a matter for local decision, but once again the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund an increase in HSG to compensate.
At this point, I should draw the attention of the House to the question of contributions from the general fund. Such contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council house tenants. Such a subsidy, like HSG itself, is indiscriminate, in that it benefits all tenants regardless of personal circumstances. It is also unnecessary because tenants who are unable to meet the cost of their housing receive assistance through housing benefit. As has been the case in recent years, therefore, the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid on 31 January, prevents authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions to the housing revenue account next year.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The Minister seems not to apply the logic that is implied in the ability to apply for tenancies in the public sector. Anyone from the private sector—who may have lived in private sector housing all his life—can make an application to a housing authority, regardless of where he lives. The Minister seems to be saying that there is no contribution from the local council tax-paying population towards that service. He is saying on the one hand—and I agree with him—that everyone can apply for housing in the public sector should they need it, but on the other hand that there is no need to make a contribution locally. People whom I have spoken to are willing to make a contribution, but the Government seem to be restricting people's wishes to contribute to general housing from their council tax.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget, however, that, since we prevented transfers from taking


place, local authority rents in Scotland have risen, on average, by only 3.5 per cent. Therefore, the problem that he identified—if we do not allow transfers, rents will somehow rise way above the rate of inflation—has not happened. Perhaps I have missed his point.

Mr. Connarty: I was talking about the people in the non-rent paying sector who pay council tax. They wish to contribute—and have never objected to contributing—to local authority housing because they and their children have the right to apply for it, should they wish to do so. The Government appear to be ghettoising public housing by cutting off general support given by people who do not currently live in council housing.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that method of achieving his aim is totally indiscriminate and does not target money on those most in need.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: I seek clarification from the Minister. He said that rents have increased by only 3.5 per cent. Although the average rent is £28.80 a week, the assumed standard rent is evaluated at £38.80 a week.

Mr. Robertson: We assumed a 3 per cent. increase in rents. That is not a guideline or a recommendation; it is an assumption on which we have based the grant formula. In practice last year, rents in Scotland rose by only 3.5 per cent.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will be aware that, last year, Glasgow's rents went up by 6.2 per cent.—well above the rate of inflation—yet the associated services have decreased over the years.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady should take that up with her local council. If she is concerned about rent increases of 6.5 per cent., which is 3 per cent. more than the rate of inflation, does she agree that a rent deal of a maximum of 1.5 per cent. more than the retail prices index for five years is a good one? Does she also agree that a rent deal of a maximum of 1 per cent. more than the RPI for the next 30 years is even better? Those are examples of the deals that have been done by tenants who have been transferred from public sector housing—local authority housing or Scottish Homes—to housing associations. If the hon. Lady wants such a deal for her constituents, will she help me to persuade the new Glasgow council to seek the necessary finance and mechanism for a large-scale transfer, with rent deals such as the ones that I have just described? Will she join me to obtain such a deal for her constituents?

Mrs. Fyfe: Glasgow tenants now pay almost the entire cost of public sector housing, because it has been years since there was any contribution from the general fund. The increase in rents in Scotland, since 1979, is 483 per cent. Is that fair to tenants? Instead of the Minister talking about deals on stock that cannot be let, it would be much more relevant for him to talk about people's real housing needs.

Mr. Robertson: I repeat: does the hon. Lady want the sort of deal that I have described for her

constituents? Will she join me in seeking to persuade the new city council to make such a deal? I shall gladly try to persuade the council to make such a deal, so that we do not have to have debates about rent rises that are twice or three times the rate of inflation. The hon. Lady seems to forget that we have funded investment in Glasgow's housing next year by almost 22 per cent. more per house than the Scottish average. If she wishes to complain about what the new Glasgow council does with the money, she probably has more influence over that than I have.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I seek information about the level of housing benefit support for tenants in Glasgow. Has my hon. Friend any idea of what proportion of tenants in Glasgow public housing are on housing benefit? How much is the taxpayer paying for that?

Mr. Robertson: I shall come to that subject later, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, of all Scottish council tenants, some 72 per cent. are on housing benefit and are therefore protected—if not wholly, at least in part—from many of the indiscriminate rent rises that we have seen. I understand that the figure for Glasgow is higher than 72 per cent.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Specifically on the point about the number of people who are exempt from paying full rent, does not the Minister realise that the 20 per cent. or so who pay full rent include widows and people with small occupational pensions? Many of those people have been loyal council tenants for many years, and they were promised by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 that she would not penalise them for having widows' pensions or occupational pensions. But they have been penalised, and housing support can go some way to keeping rents at reasonable levels for those people and preventing general resentment from building up against Government policy.

Mr. Robertson: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is supportive of our move away, over the past decade, from the indiscriminate subsidy of housing support to the targeting of assistance through the housing benefit system.
I remind the House that the grant decisions reflected in the order will have only a minimal effect on local authority rent levels. Only Aberdeenshire, Highland, Shetland and Western Isles will receive housing support grant for their mainstream council housing. The impact will be outweighed by each authority's decisions on such matters as management and maintenance spending. For the other 28 councils, the rent levels are entirely a matter for local decision. Decisions on HSG, in that respect, are irrelevant. Each council must decide for itself what level of rent is appropriate in the light of local circumstances and defend that decision to its tenants.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Angus council has the second lowest rents in Scotland and a good record of low rents. How can the Minister justify a rent increase for every Angus rent payer of £2.75 a week to pay for his capital receipts policy?

Mr. Robertson: The decision taken by Angus council is a amatter for the council itself. How can the hon.


Gentleman, as someone who has been a provost of a housing authority, justify the spiralling debts of local authorities for housing? An extra £1 billion since 1987 has increased the figure to £3.9 billion. The Government have brought in receipt rules with a request for 25 per cent. this year and 50 per cent. next year, because—given the increase in council house sales—it is surely unacceptable that fewer council tenants are paying greater debt charges. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robertson: I must make progress. The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make his speech.
Predicting the overall average rent increase across Scotland for 1996–97 is difficult, especially as some of the new councils may wish to rationalise the different rent structures that they have inherited. However, I understand that a number of councils have proposed rent increases well above inflation. I remind the House that, last year, councils were able to hold rent increases to an average of 3.5 per cent. This year, they seem to be taking a different course, which they will have to justify to their tenants. I note, for example, that the new Highland council has decided to increase rents by about 9 per cent., or £2.96 a week on average. One press report suggested that the council blamed the Government for the increase. However, the report went on to point out that only one third of the increase was due to a reduction in HSG. I calculate that only 67p of the increase can be attributed to that cause. By far the largest part of the increase was due to decisions taken by the new council.
Where an authority does not receive HSG, it is even more the case that the decisions on rents have nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with decisions of local councillors. I have no quarrel with the idea that local authorities should decide rent levels in the light of local circumstances, but I believe that they should accept responsibility for the decisions and not seek to pass the blame elsewhere.

Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps the Minister can satisfy my curiosity. In annex C, where the apportionment is given for each authority, Orkney islands council has been omitted. One would have thought that even if the balance was nil, it should have been there. Is there a special reason why Orkney, of all the councils in Scotland, is not mentioned?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I am sure that during the debate I shall receive inspiration on that matter.
Interestingly, former public sector tenants whose homes have been transferred to new landlords often find themselves protected from such annual fluctuations in their rent, because they have received guarantees about future rent rises as part of the transfer process.
The Government's proposals for housing support grant next year are fair and reasonable. It is a package that balances the interests of tenants, council tax payers and national taxpayers, and I have no hesitation in commending the orders to the House.

Mr. John McAllion: The debate is, uniquely, about council housing since housing support grant payments go only to councils. That means that it is not to the Minister's liking, which was obvious from the way in which he read the brief from his civil servants. The Minister is on record as expressing his distaste for council housing. I have a photocopy of a recent magazine article which is headed by an unattractive picture of the Minister. However, to be fair to the magazine, it is difficult to get an attractive picture of this Minister. In the article, the Minister makes clear his attitude to council housing, for which he is responsible. He says:
I want to see them"—
that is councils—
get out of the business of being landlords, out of the day to day management of the housing stock".
He wants councils in Scotland out of the housing picture completely.
Even the Minister, with all his arrogance, realises that that is a tall order. The magazine article points out that
he will have to break the bonds which tie 35 per cent. of the population to public sector housing.
In the article, the Minister says:
We are quite a bit away from what I am describing. We have a major cultural problem and a major exercise to persuade local authorities and tenants that this is the way forward.
I fear that the Minister is using the word "persuade" in the same way as the Mafia. In other words, councils and council tenants will be made an offer that they cannot refuse and, in part, that is what we are seeing in the order.
We have it straight from the horse's mouth. It does not matter what elected local councils, or council tenants, might think or want, the Minister and the Government have already made up their minds about what those council tenants will get, and they will not get council housing because it will not be on offer. That comes poorly from a Minister who, in the article to which I have already referred, talks about his vision for the future of housing in Scotland and says that he wants greater diversity and choice. It seems that people can have greater diversity and choice as long as they do not choose the tenure of which the Minister does not approve. There is no future for council housing as long as he is the Minister.
Tragically, the Minister's prejudice will impact upon hundreds of thousands of ordinary families in Scotland, partly because of the order. Council housing is by far the largest part of the social rented sector in Scotland. We hear a great deal from Ministers about the 300,000 council tenants who chose to buy their council house under the right-to-buy legislation. We never hear anything about the 600,000 council tenants who have remained in the council sector as council tenants. They are the forgotten Scots under the Government's housing regime. They will be let down by the order and will suffer because of the Government's and the Minister's prejudice and their dislike for council housing.
I shall explain some of the ways in which those 600,000 Scots will suffer. The order sets housing support grant for Scotland next year at £19.4 million. That is just under £3 million or 13 per cent. lower than the planned level for the current year. It is just under £5 million or 20 per cent. lower than the level that the Government gave last year. It represents yet another cut, another twist in an


on-going downward spiral—the steady withdrawal of Government support for council housing in Scotland over the past 15 years.
Fifteen years ago, £228 million was given to Scottish councils in housing support grant. Next year, it will be just £19.4 million and, as the Minister said, only four out of 32 local authorities will qualify for it. In cash terms, councils are now receiving 8.5 per cent. of what they were receiving from the Government 15 years ago. In real terms, they are receiving significantly less than that.
The Minister and his hon. Friends will no doubt say that that is a good thing and that, as a matter of policy, the Government are deliberately withdrawing housing support grant from tenants in Scotland. Well, okay, but what about those who have to pay council rents? The Minister made many statements about council rents, but he did not tell the House that average council rents in Scotland have increased by six times since the early 1980s. That is way above the rate of inflation and way above the increases in incomes of the people who live in those houses. In 1979–80, the average council rent in Scotland was £4.92 a week. Today the average is £28.68 a week. Next year, because of the order, it will increase by up to another 5 per cent., again way above the rate of inflation.
The Minister said that the order will have no significant impact on council rents in Scotland next year. The absence of housing support grant in the order will have a significant impact on council rents next year. Because the Government and the Minister are withdrawing housing support grant from councils, council rents will increase next year, and the Minister should accept his responsibility directly.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I have asked the House to approve a housing support grant order of over £19 million. If the hon. Gentleman were in my position, what would be the housing support grant level that he would be asking the House to approve?

Mr. McAllion: We are dealing with what the Minister is proposing. If he wants to find out how much the order would be under a Labour Government, let him and his hon. Friends call a general election now, and they will find out in a short time.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would take a general election to find out what a Labour Government would do. The Labour party has said that it will not increase taxation or take more out of the pockets of the taxpayer. So a Labour Government could not increase housing support.

Mr. McAllion: There was a rumour about two weeks ago—I was contacted by the press—that the Secretary of State was thinking of inviting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to look at all the books to see what resources are available. The Secretary of State has never made good that offer. They know that if we were allowed to see where all the money is tucked away for the tax cuts that the Government hope to use to get re-elected, the cat would be out of the bag. If we could see where the money was, we could perhaps say what we would do with it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The phrase "a look at the books" is absurd. The

Scottish Office block is published and is available to the hon. Gentleman. It sets out where the expenditure will come from. Surely it is fair to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if he were in government, he would increase the level of support provided for council tenants and from where the money would come. Why can he not answer?

Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State knows very well that the size of the Scottish Office budget is determined by Cabinet decisions on public spending generally. The Cabinet, of which the Secretary of State is a member, has found £1.5 billion to waste on rail privatisation and billions of pounds over the past few years to waste on council tax and other schemes. Where did that money come from? It came from Government decisions taken by the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends. If they cannot stand up and take responsibility for those decisions, they should not be there, and most of Scotland agrees with me that it is time that they were not there.
The Minister said that there need not be rent increases in Scotland next year, but we know for a fact that, across Scotland, in Renfrew, Dundee, Edinburgh and Highland, rents will increase significantly as a result of the Government's policies. As always, the Minister blames the councils, and, as always, he is wrong, because the blame lies fairly and squarely with him and his Government, who, over the past 15 years, have waged ideological warfare against the council sector. It was not the councils but the Government who slashed capital allocations to councils in Scotland. It was not the councils but the Government who abolished general fund contributions. It was not the councils but the Government who all but abolished housing support grant and forced councils to put rents up year on year, thereby forcing council tenants to rely on housing benefit and forcing them into a poverty trap, from which thousands of ordinary Scots can no longer escape.
This is the Government who rail against the social chapter and the national minimum wage, who are evangelical about workers pricing themselves into low-paid jobs, who force rent increases on hundreds of thousands of low-paid Scots who cannot possibly afford to pay. Yet the Minister has the effrontery to boast this evening about £650 million of housing benefit being allocated to Scottish tenants. He is creating a poverty trap from which low-paid Scots cannot escape. He is making council tenants in Scotland dependent on handouts, because he is forcing on them rent levels that are well beyond the means of ordinary people to pay.
We should not be surprised by any of that, because the Minister has already made clear his intention to finish with council housing for good in the longer term. It is now official that the final solution has been fixed by the Government, and that, in a Tory future, there will be no more council housing. All the signs are there, because as well as the slow strangulation of housing support grant in the order, we now have the ruling on capital receipts. Next year, 25 per cent. is to be used to redeem debt that councils have accumulated on their housing revenue account. The following year, 50 per cent. is to be used for the same purpose.
In those two years, some £300 million will be cut from investment in council housing in Scotland. All of that will happen at the same time as Scottish Homes, the Government's national agency, begins its second national house condition survey. God knows, the first one painted


a bleak enough picture for Scottish housing: 95,000 houses in Scotland were below the tolerable standard; 267,000 houses were affected by dampness; 580,000 required urgent repairs; and an outstanding repairs bill of £3.7 billion.
Most decent observers would have expected that a Government who commissioned such a survey and received such a devastating analysis of the crisis facing Scottish housing would have made housing one of their top political priorities—not this Government. They did exactly the opposite. They launched a holy war against housing in Scotland, particularly public sector housing. In all the talk of Government priorities recently, not one Scottish Office Minister can be found who will say that housing is a priority for the Government, because even these Ministers balk at something so blatantly untrue. So they cut the housing budget. They cut the budget for Scottish Homes. They steal the capital receipts from councils' investment programmes. They force rent rises on council tenants. They make the people pay. All of that at a time of crisis in Scottish housing.
Most hon. Members present will have received a briefing from Shelter, which says:
Few can remember a more damaging round of cuts
than that introduced by the Minister. In cash terms, it is a cut of 17 per cent. this year. In real terms, it is a cut of 19 per cent. The figure that Shelter uses is £148 million, which, by happy coincidence, is the figure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), quoted in our first debate as the increase for council spending in Scotland. I hope that those figures are not linked.
The Government will have to account for their record on housing when they face the people of Scotland, who will not forget the Government's callous, indifferent and cold attitude to the homeless in Scotland and to the people who are trapped on waiting lists. Ministers might say, "Let the homeless suffer, because they do not have a vote." They might say, "Let those who are trapped on council waiting lists wait." That is the import of their policies. Ministers might judge that those people do not vote for them or the Conservative party, but I warn Ministers that there are others in Scotland who can vote, who detest their callousness, their lack of concern and their reneging on any commitment to the most vulnerable in Scottish society. When they vote, they will remember the Minister's track record on housing. I am sure that the people of Aberdeen, South will lead the rest of the people in Scotland in ensuring that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues will be in government after the election.

Mr. Allan Stewart: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who has the merit of being an honest socialist—a fairly unusual position for a Member on the Opposition Benches these days. What was most interesting about his speech was that he completely failed to answer the perfectly reasonable questions that were put to him by my hon. Friend the Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Of course, nobody suggests that an Opposition are able to put precise figures on their policies to the last million pounds, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

told the hon. Gentleman, the Scottish block figures are perfectly well known. They are published. The hon. Gentleman refused to deny that a Labour Government would abolish all support to council housing in Scotland.

Mr. McAllion: Nobody asked me to.

Mr. Stewart: I am asking the hon. Gentleman now. What is the figure?

Mr. McAllion: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can think that I refused to answer that question when it was never asked of me in the first place. I can tell him that a Labour Government will ensure that all tenures in Scotland are treated fairly and that the resources are distributed fairly across all tenures. It is for people, not Governments, to choose the tenure that they want. Labour will go back to the old system, which was far preferable to the way in which the zealots on the Government Front Bench operate.

Mr. Stewart: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will give me the figure within £50 million.

Mr. McAllion: If the Secretary of State for Scotland were to invite me into the Scottish Office and to the Cabinet Office to see all the Government's books, I would be glad to give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is wriggling now. All the Scottish Office block figures are published. They are on the record. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he is subject to the Dunfermline doctrine: that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are entitled to say anything that they want but must never quote a figure. That means that there is never a real commitment to anything at all.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: No.
The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was completely meaningless, unless he can say, within a margin, how the Labour party would back its objectives with taxpayers' money. That is what every council tenant in Scotland should learn from the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the variation order, which is, of course, a technical matter, and about the hostel element in housing support grant. The House would accept the justification for general taxpayer support to local authority expenditure on hostels, because people move across boundaries. I thought that my hon. Friend made an extremely good case for voting against the order, because he said that it is a random and indiscriminate subsidy, which it is. He said that money out of the general portion is received by Aberdeenshire, Shetland, Western Isles and Highland. Why should I vote for a transfer of resources from the good people of Eastwood to those authorities? I cannot think of any good reason for doing so. I hope that the Labour party will divide the House. If they win the vote, the grant will be abolished. So much the better.
Government policies on housing should be developed by moving faster from using taxpayers' money for current expenditure—that is what the grant does—to concentrating on capital expenditure. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to be dismayed if the Labour party divides the House and he loses the vote, thus abolishing the Scottish housing support grant. He will then have a lot of money in hand, which he will be able to spend on capital projects.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: I am about to finish, and I know that other hon. Members want to join in the debate.
Apart from the hostel element, there are serious reasons for asking why the grant exists at all, and why the money should not be removed from the recipient councils and put towards capital expenditure, to improve the standard of the housing stock in which Scottish council tenants live.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is some time since we started our debates today, and I have been in the Chamber since we discussed the revenue account. I am sorry that I was not called in that debate, because a lot of political chicanery concerning facts and figures was going on. It was also hard to understand all the positions that various Ministers took up in the newspapers beforehand.
However, in this debate I can speak with some authority, because I was brought up in the Gorbals. There were 10 in our family, and several of them died from tuberculosis at early ages—at four, at 20 and at 33. Other people in the family died early because of the later effects of such conditions. So we know all about bad housing.
I can answer the question that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked, because I am not a member of new Labour. I am still old Labour. I am red-blooded and I fight for the people when I see an injustice. I spent 30 years dealing with housing complaints every Saturday, and I have probably found houses for more people than has anyone on the Government Benches. People used to say that they had prayed to St. Anthony and he had got them a house—but actually it was me.
I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) would not give a figure, because obviously he does not know the figure. I can give the Government a figure. I can tell them that if we wiped out the Scottish housing debt, that would improve things.
One of the reasons why we introduced the housing support grant was to clear out bad housing in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East is right about the money, because 15 years ago we had £228 million, plus £100 million from the general fund contribution, whereas in 1996 all we have is £19.4 million, including the general fund contribution. Every year, the Minister says that any local authority in Scotland can apply if it is finding difficulty, but several have done so and every one was rejected. The Government should wind up the GFC, because they are not really interested in it.
The only way in which the people of Scotland will get any justice is by getting rid of that lot. They are the last of the Mohicans; they have drained the boxes of every

penny that they could find and they all, to a man and to a woman, obey the Secretary of State for Scotland. But he will be off the card when the general election comes, along with the rest of the Scottish Ministers. Possibly the only one to survive will be Lord James himself—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember the tradition here that we address other Members by using their constituencies.

Mr. Wray: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I must remind the Government that 25 years ago we were clearing out the slums of Glasgow—the worst slums in Europe, where people were living 600 and 700 to the acre, in rat-infested houses owned by private landlords. Tuberculosis was rampant, and people were dying of poverty. Past Tory Governments acknowledged that poverty but allowed it to continue, because their support came from the private landlords who were charging the poor people in Glasgow, in the rest of Scotland and throughout Britain extortionate rents.
Today we are in the same position. We have a golden opportunity to look after the people of Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. In Glasgow, there are 23,297 dwellings below a tolerable standard, and 7,000 houses lying empty. In 1992, Glasgow city council received 5,673 applications from homeless people; in 1993–94, the figure rose to 13,200. That shows the extent of the problem and the Government's failure to tackle it.
We hear a lot about what is happening in Scotland, but those things are certainly not happening in Glasgow. In some of the constituencies with the worst housing, people suffer from high infant mortality rates, rat infestation and decaying housing unfit for human habitation.
The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity to increase the housing support grant and give Glasgow a chance to do something about poverty. Yet what figures has the Scottish Office produced? Since 1991, £22 million has been cut from the housing support grant, which represents a cut of 95 per cent. By 1995–96, there will have been a total cut of 99 per cent.
The Scottish Office works on a national figure calculated on the basis of rents 10 per cent. higher than rents really are. That means a direct cut for local authorities in Scotland. Rents are deemed to be £38.48, although the average is only £28.68. That is a damned disgrace, a fraud and a lie to the Scottish people, and it should not be tolerated.
The Secretary of State said that he was expecting rent increases of more than 5 per cent. Why would he expect that when increases are really running at only 3 per cent? When the Secretary of State put the cap on and Glasgow council asked for its inflation rate of 3 per cent., according to the right hon. Gentleman the gross domestic product deflator showed an increase of 2.75 per cent., yet he allowed it only a 1 per cent. increase. Now he wonders why the council is in its present state. He will draw upon himself the wrath of the Glasgow people with that increase, and the wrath of the people of Dundee will be turned on him too. Those are the two councils that will suffer the most.
I thought that housing support grant was intended to get rid of bad housing in Glasgow and to keep rents down, but Government policy is to ring-fence housing so that it is


funded by the people who pay the rent. Housing usually represents the largest single expenditure for individuals and families on low incomes. Earlier this century, Governments realised that, and adopted policies to provide decent housing for everyone, regardless of their income.
Those policies were successful, and, in 1977, the National Consumer Council found that people on low incomes often received better value for money than others, mostly because of good-quality subsidised housing run by councils. People in private rented accommodation suffered to some extent because Rachman-type landlords were exploiting tenants and not spending any money on their houses. As councillors we were running about trying to get the sanitary inspectors to issue disrepair notices against them.
Now we come to the sad story of when the Government took over in 1979. The election of the Tories changed the situation completely. Their policies totally altered the role of public sector rented housing. The changes involved minimising public involvement and, as in other sectors, giving way to market forces.
The main thrust of the Government's proposals was as follows. Ownership was to be extended and Government expenditure reduced and targeted more effectively. Local authority responsibility was to be decreased by increasing private ownership and transferring homes to housing associations, such as Scottish Homes, with the support of a majority of the tenants. The Government were taking housing out of local authority control, even though local authorities could probably have done something about the problem of slum dwellings.
As well as those United Kingdom-wide plans, specific legislation for Scotland was introduced. Scotland, with its history of low ownership and a large number of council houses, was seen as having plenty of potential. Legislation included the Housing Act 1980 and the Housing and Planning Act 1986. Those Acts were supposed to benefit the poor. They introduced the right-to-buy scheme. We all know about negative equity and that thousands of houses have been repossessed after the Government's Thatcherite policy failed and exploited the poor. With interest rates of 6 per cent. they bought houses with possibly 70 per cent. discounts and ended up two years later paying 18 per cent. interest charges.
That is the sort of Government that we have. They do not care about what happens and then they run around telling us what they are doing for the people. Every Labour Member knows the problems because every Saturday we see such people coming into our surgery, poverty-stricken and in ill health because the Government do not care. Compassion comes only from Labour Members.
Those Acts were supposed to benefit the poor. They introduced the right-to-buy scheme, which allowed tenants to buy their houses at market value minus a discount, based on the length of occupancy. They moved subsidies from buildings to households to help people most in need and to shield the poor. The decline in council housing and the increase in private sector dwellings and housing associations was meant to increase the choice of accommodation available.
What happened? The policy of increasing home ownership has been a success in terms of numbers, with an increase of 450,000 in new owners, but the prospect of

home ownership has been unrealistic for people on low incomes; even with discounts of up to 70 per cent. on the market value, the prices were beyond their means.
The Government then committed the cardinal sin—this bright Cabinet introduced deregulation. In 1989, the Tories deregulated private rents. Since then, housing benefits for private tenants have increased from £1 billion to £5.5 billion—an increase of 300 per cent. The planned total in 1997–98 is £7.4 billion. That shows exactly what the Government are about, how they have changed the policy around, how they are putting the burden on the taxpayer, how they are getting at the poor and how housing benefits are clearing up debts. That is the only way in which they are working. The increase in such housing, benefits, is due mostly, to massively, increased rents—public money going straight into private landlords' pockets.
I have taken many hours in the Chamber to express my constituents' views. They are the same as the views that they expressed in 1987 when I was first elected to the House. The problems are the same in housing, in education and in any other service that is being provided. The minute that Labour Members see something worth while being done that helps the poor, the Government start to cut. They are cutting and cutting and continue to cut.
I do not want to talk for much longer because other hon. Members want to do so. The people of Scotland and of Glasgow are not kidded by the Government. After the general election, they will be out on their ear because of the way in which they have treated the people of Scotland for 16 years.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I raised with the Minister in his speech probably has more significance than I thought at the time. We are debating the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order. It states that, under the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the order shall not be made until a draft has been laid before the House, with a report of the considerations leading to the order's provisions, and until that has been approved by a resolution of the House.
The definition of a report is found in section 192(3) of that Act, which states that the report should
contain a table showing in respect of each local authority, for the year in question—

(a) the estimated amount of grant payable to that local authority; or
(b) if no amount of grant is so payable, that fact."

This purported report is informative, but does not meet the statutory requirement because Orkney islands council is omitted from it. It is an interesting document, but has no legal status. Even if approved by the House, the draft order will not therefore satisfy statute in giving the Secretary of State the power to make housing support grant payments.
I am concerned because the other half of my constituency—covered by the Shetland islands council—is due to receive about £3.9 million. I would hate to find that the Secretary of State could not legally pay that money. Can you rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether we are debating a competent order, and whether, if we proceed to make a resolution, it will carry no legal weight? Does the Minister intend to introduce a draft order with a report that meets the statutory requirement?

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can rule on this matter now. There may be a flaw, but that is not for the occupants of the Chair to determine. The only matter for them is whether the motion is in order, and it is. The Minister must answer any points about flaws in the order that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) detects.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister wishes to comment.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right that Orkney islands council has been omitted from the order. It is a printing error that does not affect the order's validity.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a short point of order?

Mr. Kirkwood: It is short, but important. When we consider the parent legislation under which the order and the report are being discussed, the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is incontrovertibly true. The exchanges that are taking place are able to be considered by the courts. Some people would have a locus in taking out an interdict if the order went through in this clearly defective state.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the point clearly that it is not a matter on which the occupant of the Chair can rule. It may be a matter for debate and for answer by the Minister, but that is as far as it can be taken by the occupant of the Chair tonight.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that ruling. I understand that it is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair—that is clear—but it is a matter for people who might suffer as a result of the House passing a defective order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is a time limit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am aware of that. I have already said that I can deal only with points of order that are relevant to the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The order that has been laid before the House is correct and we are voting on the amounts of housing support grant to be paid.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made it clear that he is concerned not with that point, but with the report. Again, that is not a matter for me. The debate is short and it should now continue.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Having listened with great interest to the points of order, I should like to return to the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). After his speech, there cannot be a dry eye in the House. I respect his views. He is totally honest. Unlike perhaps many of the people who purport to support the Labour party these days, he sticks to his traditional beliefs. He has forgotten many things that have happened in Glasgow in recent years. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Conservative Governments were in power, money was poured into local government and housing in Glasgow. That raised standards considerably. Since Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister, massive improvements have taken place in Glasgow through repairs and improvement grants. Money went into Glasgow and uplifted it in a way that could never have been dreamt of by the people with whom the hon. Member for Provan served on councils in years gone by.
The hon. Gentleman said that if the Labour party were in power, it could provide £4 billion to write off the council housing debt. That is nine times the annual amount of the tartan tax that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would impose on us should he ever get his hands on the reins of power. At least the hon. Member for Provan has been honest about the figure.
I never fail to be impressed by the honesty that flows from the tongue of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). However, I do not go along with his opinions and occasionally his facts are wrong, but he always believes in what he says. Perhaps some Opposition Members should take note of that.
In one or two areas, there have been massive changes in recent times. The greatest of those changes has been the way in which people are given the means for adequate housing through housing benefit. That benefit currently injects some £620 million a year into local authority housing.

Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is addressing the issue of housing benefit, will he remind the House that if councils had put up their rents to economic levels to allow for maintenance, much if not all of the rents would have been paid through housing benefit to those who were eligible and money could have gone straight into the housing coffers? Mismanagement by socialist or nationalist authorities has led to this situation.

Mr. Gallie: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall give him a good example of that. Kyle and Carrick district council has put up its rents, but at the same time it has invested massively in its housing stock, upgrading it to such an extent that I defy any hon. Member to say that in his constituency he has better local authority housing.
The predecessor of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was David Lambie, a guy for whom I have every respect. He was a tremendous constituency Member, but he was totally misguided on this issue. Through their council links over the years, he and his family depressed rents in the Saltcoats area and other parts of north Ayrshire and reduced the quality of housing. At the same time, he had the audacity to come to the House and earn a good salary while living in one of the council


houses that he was attempting to protect. Nowadays that would not be allowed, because housing benefit recognises the ability to pay. That is fair.

Mr. Wray: rose—

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: rose—

Mr. Gallie: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Provan.

Mr. Wray: The one thing that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has established is that there are at least two honest men in the House. Will he be truthful and say whether he agrees that a local authority such as that in Glasgow should stop receiving housing support grants?

Mr. Gallie: Yes, I have no difficulty in agreeing to that, provided that there is a means to back tenants who need support, and housing benefit does just that. It is provided by central taxpayers and does not place the burden on other council house residents. It simply spreads the burden and that is fair and right.

Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman lives in an unreal world. He has lived all his days in the leafy suburbs of either West Kilbride or Ayr: he has never lived in the middle of a slum area. That is part of the problem that he faces in debating housing allocation. I do not represent Saltcoats, but I know that the housing stock there is among the best in Cunninghame and always has been. That is all down to the good management of the old Saltcoats town council.

Mr. Gallie: For a start, the hon. Gentleman's facts are all wrong. I came from an area in Fife that was not known for its leafy suburbs. I lived in a public sector house: my family certainly did not own it. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is way off beam. He is also wrong about housing stock in Saltcoats. I was on Cunninghame district council from 1980 to 1984 and at that time the worst housing stock in Cunninghame was in Saltcoats. He should retract every word that he has said about that, and when he speaks in future he should make sure that he has the facts and not a load of rubbish, which is what he has just spoken.
I should like to deal with some other issues. I welcome the extra injection of cash into council hostel facilities. That is important, particularly for young homeless people. It is not right to put them out into the housing estates and leave them unattended. Hostel facilities are ideal and I commend the Minister for finding the extra cash for them. The Government have also found additional cash for Scottish Homes, but I have a complaint because I learnt recently that Scottish Homes plans to inject into Glasgow some £8 million for so-called ethnic housing. I am not a racist. Housing must be available as and when it is needed and it must be allocated by fair means and be available to all our citizens irrespective of creed or culture or anything else. I question the Government about the correctness of Scottish Homes taking that line and ask whether it is right under the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gallie: No. I have already given way and other hon. Members wish to speak.
I will leave the matter with the Government. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West said that his council tenants were prepared to provide additional funding for housing. Perhaps that is right, but all my constituents are prepared to do that through the general taxation system. That brings us back to the housing benefit system, which I think is correct but which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept.

Mr. Connarty: I am the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, not Falkirk, West. I did not say that council tenants were willing to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests: I said the opposite. I said that people such as the hon. Gentleman and I who live in the private sector were quite willing until they were stopped by the Government, to contribute some of their council tax, which at that time was rates, to the housing account for bricks and mortar. That was because they and their children, should they ever need it, had the right to apply for council housing. The Government have excluded that and I accuse them of trying to ghettoise council housing, because that is their ideology.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is totally off beam. Many of my constituents and many of the people whom I represented when I was a councillor greatly resented having to pay through the rating system for the provision of housing for others. Many of those people found it difficult to meet their own housing needs, but that was not recognised through the rating system. Now through the general taxation system, through income tax—perhaps a tax that recognises the ability to pay—everyone shares the burden for the provision of such housing. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) would have applauded and welcomed that. I do not understand the issue that he raised.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Scottish Homes rural initiative, under which the scheme in Spittalfield in my constituency was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister? The initiative is giving people houses at a price that they can afford and creating schemes of which people will be proud because they will own their houses. Those who cannot afford to buy houses rent the others available. It is a superb scheme.

Mr. Gallie: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
I should like to refer to the benefits that the right-to-buy policy has brought. Not only have individuals become owners and taken pride in their ownership, but they have injected cash into the properties that they have purchased. They have upgraded properties and areas and made life better for themselves and those around them. Surely everyone should commend that.
The Government's policy on housing is all about devolution—to people who want to buy and people who want to manage their own housing affairs through housing associations. That, too, is a commendable policy and I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Dundee, East seemed to condemn it.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not manage to have the


order withdrawn, because it would have been nice to see Scottish Office Ministers being sent back to the drawing board.
The annual debate on the housing support grant never seems to change. Once again the level of support is down. This year the total in real terms spent on housing will be 19 per cent. less than last year. In 1979, if we can think back to then, £164 million was spent. In 1995–96, the grant dropped to £22 million, and in the next financial year it will be £19.4 million. Only the four councils that we have heard about will receive money out of the general portion. Others will receive it from the hostel portion. Under the latter category, my constituency will receive about £80,000. Will the Minister confirm what the City of Glasgow receives in hostel provision?
With the principal source of new council housing investment—capital receipts—being reduced by 25 per cent. this year and 50 per cent. next year to go towards debt repayment, there is no doubt that rents will have to go up. In Argyll and Bute that is certainly the case as it tries to keep up with ever-growing repair and maintenance work in an area where incomes are low, job losses have been announced in each of the past three weeks, and the costs of living and transport are high.
The number of dwellings below tolerable standard will not be reduced either. In 1995, according to Scottish Office figures—I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) also mentioned the fact—90,000 homes in Scotland were below tolerable standard. In a rural area such as Argyll and Bute, more than 7,000 homes are below tolerable standard—a mere reduction of 204 houses since last year. That is a disgrace in a country such as ours.
Shelter has called for a rough sleepers initiative in Scotland similar to the one introduced to tackle the problem in London, on which the Government spent £182 million. Will the Minister consider it? The number of homeless people continues to shame our civilised country.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: May I explain that we have not taken forward a rough sleepers initiative because we are in the process of undertaking research into the prevalence of rooflessness in Scotland? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I expect to consider the results in the middle of the year. We will be looking at four urban areas plus other areas throughout Scotland. We will be bringing policies forward based on fact and not speculation once we have the results of the research that we have commissioned.

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and pleased to hear that policies will be brought forward. I hope that those policies will be matched by the requisite resources.
Council house sales are always expected to raise more money than is realistically possible. Of course the sum will be reduced because of the new rules on the repayment of debt. Certainly in my area most of the saleable council houses have already gone and people do not want to buy those that are left. The Government want to sell council housing stock to housing associations regardless of tenants' views simply so that they can enter agreements with the private sector.
Councils should be able to approach the private sector and form partnerships. That fact that they are not doing that is surely an indication of how much the Government

dislike local government. It is sad because local authorities and their agencies can do so much more in building stable communities. They can encourage tenants associations to take an interest in planning and management of their housing and the environment.
The funding crisis is going to pose huge difficulties for frail elderly people, those with special needs and children of 16, 17 and 18 years old who come out of care homes and need to be housed in the community. They will need help and often continued support, which councils will have to face under the present funding constraints.
I understand from Scottish Office statements that there are not only plans for a real terms cut of 20 per cent. in council housing budgets, but plans to cut the Scottish Homes budget next year by about £50 million. Will the Minister confirm that? Indeed, there have been continuous cuts in the Scottish Homes budget, which was the great white hope when it was established. The budget has been cut from £135.2 million in 1991 to £107 million.
I want to bring to the attention of the Minister the recent severe cold weather and ask for his support. Much damage was done to housing in Scotland in that period. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, at least 119,000 houses were adversely affected. In Argyll and Bute more than 1,000 houses suffered—many from loss of heating, not least because people dare not switch on the heating due to the extra cost.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister how in my constituency the present system of cold weather payments has been shown to be a complete nonsense. Over the area as a whole, temperatures fell below zero for seven consecutive days. Daytime temperatures varied from as low as minus 15 deg C to minus 18 deg C during the day and fell even lower at night.
Areas north of Taynuilt and up into Wester Ross suffered similar drops in temperature, yet because they are linked by their postcode to the trigger station on Tiree, they received no assistance. As the Minister knows, Tiree sits out in the Gulf stream. Perhaps that is why the Government chose it. It recorded temperature swings of between minus 5 per cent. and plus 4 per cent. over the same seven-day period. However, there was a wind chill factor of minus 11 per cent., so it suffered severe disadvantage—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am not clear how the point she is making relates to the order under consideration.

Mrs. Michie: My point relates to housing and the order deals with housing and resources for housing. In particular, I am referring to those houses damaged during the severe weather in Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State for Social Security if he would consider—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not dealing with the main issue of the order. I must ask her to deal with that and also to bear it in mind that this is a short debate and several other hon. Members are waiting to speak on the order.

Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall adhere to what you say. Perhaps the Minister has got the message. I hope that he will carefully consider the matters that I have raised tonight.

Mr. David Marshall: In the housing support grant order, as in the revenue support grant order, the city of Glasgow seems to have been singled out for vindictive treatment. How else can the Government explain a settlement that gives the least resources to the city with the greatest need? The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to Glasgow in the 1950s and 1960s. It was the highly selective policy of overspill of people and jobs to other parts of Scotland that caused many of the problems that the city faces today. Any money being spent in the city is a way of society repaying its debts.
I had hoped to speak in our earlier debate on the revenue support grant. Unfortunately, what should have been a debate lasting more than three hours became a debate that lasted just one hour and 20 minutes—wholly inadequate for such an important subject. Several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members were unable to participate.
There is to be a massive cut of almost £30 million in capital funding for housing in Glasgow. That is an extremely serious blow to the city—even more so when taken with the revenue grant figure, because the capping level means that Glasgow has to make cuts of £68 million. If we deduct the £25 million that the city finds from various sources, that leaves £43 million to be found from cuts in services and increased charges—a cut of almost £1 million a week or £117,808.21 every day of the year. How can Glasgow tackle the evils of unemployment, poverty and poor housing with such a settlement?
Because of the housing capital cuts, 300 people could lose their jobs in the city's housing department. Already, 700 council employees have taken redundancy. With enforced compulsory redundancies, the figure for job losses could rise to 2,000. That shows the scale of the problem that the city faces.
The proposed council tax increase of 36 per cent. means that band D council tax payers will face an increase of £243—from £676 to £919. In addition, council house rents have had to be increased by an average of £3.94 a week. The combined rent and council tax increases will mean more and more misery for many citizens, especially those caught in the poverty trap whose income is just above the qualifying level to obtain any benefits.
As if the housing support grant order were not bad enough, Glasgow had the misfortune to suffer horrendous damage to its housing stock in the severe weather over the new year. I dealt with that matter fully in an Adjournment debate on 17 January. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for meeting Glasgow Members of Parliament recently to discuss the severe weather problems and capital allocations. It was a much more constructive meeting than we had expected. Nevertheless, Glasgow is still faced with the same problem.
The latest figures for the cost of the winter emergency are £9.1 million for the reinstatement work in respect of the housing revenue account. To fund that, the council will have to delay capital expenditure of £2.3 million on heating, windows and roofing projects. Day-to-day repairs, at an estimated cost of £2.8 million, will be displaced by frost emergency work, resulting in an increase in outstanding repairs of 10,000. There will also

be a potential deficit in the housing revenue account for 1996–97 of £2.9 million. I understand that the Minister has now received the relevant information from Glasgow city council. I hope that he will soon be in a position to respond positively.
On the vexed question of housing support grant, has the Minister yet reconsidered the differences between the Government's capital receipts targets and the council's predicted outturn figures? I want to put the figures to him again. On right-to-buy sales, the Government expectation is an income of £20.872 million. The council prediction is £13.5 million. On stock transfers, the figures are £3.871 million and nothing, and on land sales they are £3 million and £500,000 respectively. That is a total Government expectation of £27.918 million against a council prediction of £14 million—a shortfall of almost £14 million.
As has already been said, the Government's receipts targets are based on a pattern of house sales and Scottish Homes stock transfer activity in 1994–95 rather than 1995–96, when there was a drop in the number of house sales inquiries and take-up and acceptance rates of 35 and 58 per cent. respectively. Most of the houses that people want to buy have already been bought, so the sales of council houses will slump in the coming year. Indeed, to be quite frank, in many cases the stock that is left is not worth buying. Scottish Homes in Glasgow does not expect to have any funding to effect further acquisitions.
A much more realistic target for the council would be a reduction of the receipts targets to £500,000 for land sales and stock transfers combined and to £13.5 million for the right to buy. In addition, there should be a commensurate increase in borrowing consent to ensure that the council is able to meet its legal commitments. Finally, by reducing borrowing consent there will be a serious risk to public-private partnerships such as the Glasgow energy and urban regeneration initiatives.
The Minister is insisting that the target for voluntary transfers—which are really compulsory transfers—of 1 per cent. of the total remaining housing stock must be reached in the next financial year. For Glasgow, that means that almost 1,100 houses must be transferred to new landlords—but who? Is there to be a return to Rachmanism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked? Scottish Homes cannot fund housing associations to take on those houses, so who will be the landlords? The same applies to land sales. Will speculators move in and buy up land so that when the Glasgow Development Agency, Scottish Homes, Greater Glasgow health board or Glasgow city council want to buy the land back to develop it, they will have to pay extortionately high prices? That is not sense; it is nonsense and it is also counter-productive.
I appeal to the Secretary of State not simply to abandon local government but to show some compassion and concern for those who most need the essential services that local government provides. If the Secretary of State for Wales can find an additional £15 million to ensure that no council has to increase its council tax by more than 25 per cent., why cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland do the same?

Mr. Connarty: I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is developing. Glasgow will have a problem similar to that of other authorities that have built large


multi-storey blocks of flats, with perhaps 85 flats in each block. The cost of refurbishment can be up to £1.6 million per block. It appears that the Government are not taking into account in their calculations the costs of allowing the blocks to deteriorate further. Surely Glasgow will have a massive problem. I know that 11 blocks in Falkirk district require massive investment. Will the Government tell us where the money will come from to refurbish those blocks?

Mr. Marshall: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The money is there; what is not there is the will to make it available. If the Government can find £30 million for HCI, £69 million to cap water bills, £600 million to write off water quango debts and more than £1 billion for the waste of the rail privatisation shambles, they can find some money to help local authorities and to help the people of Scotland.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have had a useful debate and in the short time that is left, I will try to respond to as many points as possible. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) questioned the validity of the report. The legal advice we have received is that the omission of Orkney is a technical error in the draft report which will be corrected when the report is finalised after the debate. The error does not affect the validity of the order.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked about hostel grants to Glasgow. The hostel grant covers the deficit between the cost of operating hostels and the income received. It can, and does, vary from year to year. In 1995–96, Glasgow received £125,000 and in 1996–97, it would have received £92,000, but the figure was reduced because of an overpayment in an earlier year. The subsidy system is based on making an estimate for the year ahead. If the deficit turns out to be less than estimated, the payment is adjusted in a later year's order. That is why the Glasgow grant is less next year; that is purely a technical effect of the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) asked about housing benefit in Glasgow. I understand that around 82 per cent. of Glasgow tenants are in receipt of housing benefit. Last year, £156 million was paid to Glasgow tenants in rent rebates. My hon. Friend also referred to Scottish Homes and the £8 million grant for ethnic housing in Glasgow. I understand what my hon. Friend was saying, but I point out that it is a matter for Scottish Homes and he should take it up with the chairman or the chief executive.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) talked about housing support grant levels and the general fund contributions. I estimate that the cost of implementing an HSG subsidy regime using actual average rents and actual expenditure, as proposed in the brief to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would be £93 million, which is £73 million more than planned. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would allow council tax levels to rise to accommodate that figure? He is not willing to catch my eye, which makes me think that he was saying one thing when he was standing and another once he was sitting. Is he saying that he would allow council tax levels to rise to meet that £93 million?

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman could find the money that has been wasted on assisted places, on the nursery voucher scheme and on rail privatisation, I could certainly find money to support council housing.

Mr. Robertson: That is £6 million. What happens to the other £87 million? Throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, he called for more money to be spent and for more resources to be ploughed in. He says that the Government are waging a holy war against council housing. That is a strange accusation to level at a Minister who was brought up in a council house and whose parents still live in a council house. The hon. Gentleman would not say how many more resources he would be willing to commit. Will he do the decent and honourable thing by informing the House how much more, if he were standing in my place tonight, the order would give? Until he tells us how much, he can have no credibility.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister will have no credibility as long as he wastes money on nursery voucher schemes that nobody in Scotland wants, as long as he wastes money on assisted places schemes, as long as he wastes money on rail privatisation and as long as he wastes money in many other areas of public expenditure. He should get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to argue in the Cabinet for more public investment. Everyone in Scotland and the United Kingdom knows that the Government are planning tax cuts as an election bribe. That is where we would get the money to fund public services.

Mr. Robertson: So parents all over Scotland are to take it that nursery vouchers are a waste of money and that increasing nursery provision is a waste of money. I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. How much more would he ask the House to approve tonight? He cannot bleat and rant about a lack of resources if he will not say by how much he believes we are underfunding. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question.

Mr. McAllion: I have told the Minister about billions of pounds of public expenditure that he has wasted. We would redirect that money towards public resources. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to find out the figure, I repeat my challenge to him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. If they want to know—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 February].

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 190.

Division No. 64]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Biffen, Rt Hon John






Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carrington, Matthew
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clappison, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, Sir George
Mills, Iain


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gill, Christopher
Moate, Sir Roger


Gillan, Cheryl
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony





Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stem, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene
Coffey, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corston, Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tarn


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Darling, Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gerrard, Neil






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Hara, Edward


Grocott, Bruce
Olner, Bill


Hall, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Pearson, Ian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hodge, Margaret
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Hoon, Geoffrey
Raynsford, Nick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Rendel, David


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooney, Terry


Hutton, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Illsley, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Ingram, Adam
Ruddock, Joan


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Salmond, Alex


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jamieson, David
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Simpson, Alan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jowell, Tessa
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Snape, Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Spellar, John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Stevenson, George


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stott, Roger


Lynne, Ms Liz
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McFall, John
Timms, Stephen


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Touhig, Don


McLeish, Henry
Turner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Alice
Wareing, Robert N


Marek, Dr John
Watson, Mike


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Andrew


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Milburn, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Ms Janet Anderson.


Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

Orders of the Day — SCHOOLS

That the draft Deregulation (Length of the School Day) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NOISE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.

The Bill creates a new offence in respect of noise emitted from dwellings at night that exceeds a permitted level as measured by an approved device.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRISONERS' EARNINGS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisoners' Earnings Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of amounts deducted from or levied on prisoners' earnings.-[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Roads (East Sussex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity of initiating this debate.
There have been substantial cuts in the roads programme in recent years—a fact that is often lost on the anti-roads lobby. Even with an integrated transport policy, there is a need for sensible and necessary road schemes that improve the environment and support economic activity.
An excellent example is the A22 new route into Eastbourne, which has attracted some £25 million of Government funding. That is extremely welcome, and I was delighted to be present at the opening on 12 January of the first phase of the road. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will be interested to know that there was not a protester, a tree house or a tunnel in sight at the opening, because the road is welcomed by the entire local community.
The existing A22 brings a large flow of traffic, especially in the summer, through residential areas in my constituency into the centre of the town. That is dangerous and causes pollution for residents. It gives them a problem in getting out of their front drives. My constituents in Willingdon and Ratton, and especially in King's drive, will benefit from a significantly enhanced quality of life as a result of the road scheme.
The new route from Dittons to Seaside diverts traffic away from those residential areas and opens up access to business and industrial areas, and to the Sovereign Harbour marina development. Even better, the road crosses marshy land that is of little use for any other purpose. I pay tribute to Mr. Bob Wilkins, the county engineer, and his team, who have done so much work on the project. I look forward to the opening of the final phase in about two and a half years' time.
Another excellent example is the Polegate bypass. That will be of enormous environmental benefit to my constituents in Polegate, which is a major road bottleneck, especially during rush hours. A wall of stationary traffic often divides Polegate in two—traffic that does not want to be there in the first place. The fumes and other effects are especially bad in the summer months. The project has been sought after for many a long year. It is essential that the road should be finished in time for the completion of the new A22, or £25 million will have been spent on a road that leads nowhere.
The Polegate bypass is included in the list of schemes to be carried out under a design, build, finance and operate, or DBFO, scheme. That is welcome. I am grateful for the help and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in pushing for an early start date on the Polegate bypass.
I believe that DBFO concessions normally involve core requirements to ensure timely delivery of new construction schemes. This scheme is fairly straightforward, and has cleared all its statutory planning procedures. There is nothing standing in its way from that point of view. The compulsory purchase order for the scheme expires on 28 September this year. As I

understand it, provided that notices to treat are served on landowners before that date, the statutory procedures will not have to be repeated. It would be beyond bearing if that did not happen in the relevant time scale, and we had to start the statutory procedures again.
The third scheme involves the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and is the last vital piece in the local roads structure. The road is dualled west of Lewes, but is single-track between Lewes and Polegate. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has lobbied long and hard for that development, and I have been happy to add my voice to his since I came into the House. Together, we brought a high-powered delegation to meet the Minister only last November to push the case for the A27.
The scheme has the support of the county council, Eastbourne borough council and Wealden district council. Only yesterday, East Sussex county council, in full session, reconfirmed its all-party support for the new A27. All significant business and industrial organisations support the scheme under the umbrella of the A27 Support Group, ably and energetically chaired by Michael Barrett. All told, it represents some 5,000 businesses in the area, with the active participation of the Eastbourne Business Partnership.
That widespread support is not surprising. First, there is the question of safety. The road is dangerous. Sussex police have recorded 141 accidents involving injury, resulting in 267 casualties; there were seven fatalities, 63 serious injuries and 197 slight injuries on the stretch to which I have referred during the five years to December 1993. Traffic flows are very heavy on the A27, which carries more than 22,000 vehicles a day. That is well within the ordinary and accepted parameters in respect of traffic flows for dual carriageways.
I am particularly indebted to Mr. Brian Stoodley, a leading local surgeon at Eastbourne district general hospital, who has taken an interest in the issue. Along with his colleagues, he has to deal all too often with the practical and unpleasant consequences of the design of the road.
On the subject of safety—as well as the efficient use of the road—it is worth pointing out that, according to one survey, in a distance of approximately 10 miles there are some 110 points of access to, or egress from, the existing road. No wonder it is both dangerous and slow.
I believe that sensible road projects of this kind have considerable environmental advantages. We are indebted to Saab, the Swedish car manufacturer, whose research has shown that a car covering a distance of 10 m, with its engine idling, in a queue of traffic—that is so often the position on the A27—will emit 57 times as many hydrocarbons and 60 times as much carbon monoxide as a car passing at 30 mph.
Not only has the south-east not done as well as other parts of the country in the lottery of road building in terms of motorways and dual carriageways; within the general picture of deprivation, East Sussex has done extremely badly, even in comparison with West Sussex. West Sussex has 48.53 miles of county roads, as opposed to 9.13 miles in East Sussex; West Sussex has 40.71 miles of trunk roads, compared with only 13.91 in East Sussex. Those are pretty depressing statistics.
One of the main reasons for the project is the impact on business. The current poor communications have a major impact on the holiday and conference trades. A number


of large conferences and seminars originally destined for my constituency have gone elsewhere, because of the time that it takes to get there and back. That is serious, in a town in which some 6,000 jobs and more than £100 million in revenue depend on tourism and related business each year.
I have received a mass of letters—some of which the Minister has seen—from local businesses of every description. Let me give just three serious recent examples. Only a few weeks ago, it was announced that Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer, the pharmaceuticals giant whose northern European headquarters are currently in Eastbourne, is to relocate to somewhere nearer the M25. More than 100 jobs may be affected. It gives as one of its reasons the inadequate road structure in the area.
Another example is a company called T. Cox and Son Ltd., which has been in Eastbourne for 99 years. As its director, Mr. Richard Piper, points out in a letter to the A27 support group,
it is extremely sad that in our centenary year, in 1996, we will be re-locating to Tonbridge.
The company employs more than 70 staff. Mr. Piper goes on to say:
We have been obliged to make the decision to re-locate because we can no longer effect a timely and efficient distribution to our customers from our Eastbourne premises.
In conclusion, he says:
Eastbourne has so much going for it but I fear that its economic survival is being strangled because it is virtually detached by road from the rest of the country.
Another company, ADM, recently calculated that it spends £150,000 a year in additional wage and fuel bills because of the slow road structures in the area. Mr. Nik Askaroff, the managing director, said in a recent letter:
it is not our intention to put any more investment into Eastbourne until we see some positive action as regards the roads and the help for industry. To this end we have just opened a 7,000 sq. ft. unit in Basildon with 25 jobs which have been lost to Eastbourne.
That is good news for Basildon, but bad news for my constituency.
Hon. Members may ask whether many people oppose the road scheme. As I have already said, it is the official policy of the large local authorities in the area that the road scheme should go ahead, and business organisations and other organisations are solidly in favour of it. However, a recent transport policy document put out by the East Sussex group of Liberal Democrats was stridently anti-road in its theme—it is clear that they do not support it.
One of the authors of the policy document is Councillor Norman Baker, who has a long record of opposition to the scheme. He is also the chairman of the county council economic development committee. His views on this issue are perhaps coloured by his personal interests—which I hasten to add have been declared in the usual statutory way—because the proposed route passes close to his home. As chairman of the committee, he is speaking totally at odds with the policy of his county council, reiterated as recently as yesterday.
The other authors of the pamphlet are the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary candidates for Hastings and Rye and for Eastbourne. The document talks about "providing local improvements" only on the A27. In my view, dualling is the key—nothing else matters. This document flies in the face of overwhelming local opinion

and of mounting evidence of job losses. It is hardly surprising that the recently leaked Liberal Democrat policy document, "Towards 1996", describes their image as "anti-road barmies".
There are people who oppose the road because they have homes, often second homes, along the proposed route. There is also the usual group of anti-road protesters who are well organised and well funded—some of whom move around the country from one project to the other and often have little knowledge of or interest in my constituency and local needs.
This programme was retained in the Government's road building programme in the budget. It was also included in a list of schemes for smaller-scale improvements. I urge the Minister for Railways and Roads to recognise that nothing less than dualling will do with respect to the A27. Let the design work on the scheme proceed, taking into account all reasonable objections on environmental grounds, so that my constituents and those who live nearby can have a vital road link that is built in harmony with the countryside.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for raising this topic this evening. It is refreshing to have heard from him a balanced account of the importance that roads can have—an account grounded in the real needs of a community, its people and businesses.
On our plans for the road network in East Sussex and the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, we must balance transport benefits against their environmental cost. An equally important concern is the balance between the number of good transport investments that we are called on to support and their affordability.
Frankly, we cannot afford to support anything like the number of good, worthwhile projects available, if we are to continue to control our expenditure. Our review of the motorway and trunk road programme announced in November sought to ensure that we were committed to the most effective overall programme achievable, in the light of the resources available to Government in the next few years.
Before talking about individual road schemes, it may be worth saying something about roads for the county as a whole. My hon. Friend will recognise that East Sussex is served by a trunk road box. The M25, although not in East Sussex itself, provides for strategic east-west movements to the north of the county. It is also, of course, the point of access to the strategic motorway network as a whole.
To the south of the county is the A27/A259 south coast trunk route. The importance of that link to the economies of Brighton, Eastbourne, Hastings and other towns is not disputed, and there is little that I would want to add to what my hon. Friend has already said about the importance of those links. The trunk road network is extended south of the A27 by the A26 to Newhaven.
The M25 and the south coast trunk route are linked by two trunk roads to the west and east of the county—the A23 to Brighton and the A21 to Hastings.
We have proposals in the future programme for all those roads except the A26. We announced last year our intention to widen the busiest section of the M25—the section between the M3 and the M40—to five and six-lane dual carriageway.
For the A23, we still have one scheme in our long-term programme, but we have in fact already implemented most of our proposals for the A23, with a programme of schemes costing about £85 million. Regular users of the A23 will be well acquainted with the improvements that have been achieved on the route in the past five years.
On the A21, I was pleased to be able to announce in the November review that two schemes would form part of a package to be built under the private finance initiative. Those are the Tonbridge to Pembury improvement and the much-needed, long-awaited Lamberhurst bypass.
Again, those schemes are not in East Sussex—they are in Kent—but they are on the Hastings link to the M25, and that is a key reason why we have sought to ensure that those improvements are provided as soon as possible. They will be built under what we call design, build, finance and operate arrangements—DBFO for short—in which a single contractor finances and constructs road improvements. He then maintains and operates the road for a 30-year period.
The DBFO package for Kent and East Sussex does, of course, extend beyond the A21; it includes the construction of the A27 Polegate bypass in my hon. Friend's constituency, and he has asked about timing.
The Highways Agency is aiming to award a contract for the project in the 1997–98 financial year. Construction should start shortly after the contract is awarded. All DBFO contracts have an incentive for the contractor to get on with construction as early as he possibly can. As I explained to my hon. Friend in my recent letter, the agency is aware that the compulsory purchase order for the Polegate bypass expires in September. It will therefore serve notices to treat before the expiry date. That is sufficient to ensure that the order is valid and that the statutory procedures will not need to be repeated.
On the proposed Lewes to Polegate improvement, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Eastbourne came to see me about this scheme in November and made the case for its importance. The A27 between Lewes and Polegate is a single carriageway with poor alignment. It is common to see long queues trailing behind slow-moving vehicles and even farm traffic. Conditions of that sort inevitably lead to the sort of safety problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne explained, and to unpredictable journey times.
I have also received strong representations from people who are uneasy about the effect of the published scheme. I would add that the total cost of the proposed scheme was estimated at about £82 million, making it one of the most expensive schemes in the programme. Given that those difficulties exist, we need to be very clear that we

are striking the right balance between the need for improvements, environmental protection and overall cost. For that reason, I have asked the Highways Agency to review the scheme to see what the effects of smaller-scale improvements would be.
I am reluctant to anticipate the outcome of the review. In particular, my hon. Friend asked about a continuing commitment to dualling. Without anticipating the results of the review, there is a strong prima facie case for providing a dual carriageway for most, and indeed probably all, of that section of road. But we must have a look at the detail before we can make a firm decision.
If there were an option for single carriageway for some or all of the route, I would want to know the answers to various questions. What would it cost? What would it achieve? What would be the additional cost of a dualling option? What extra benefits would dualling realise? What is the difference in the environmental impact? Those are exactly the type of questions on which I am looking to the agency for advice.
I would add now that, since the existing scheme covers more than 10 miles of road, there may also be phasing options that are worth considering, which might make the scheme more affordable. But I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review. For tonight, I wish to assure my hon. Friend that we do not intend to walk away from the problem.
I have confined my response to trunk roads, but before closing I must acknowledge my hon. Friend's words about the A22 improvement, which we have funded through the transport supplementary grant at a cost of more than £30 million. I agree that that was a much-needed scheme for Eastbourne, with real economic benefits, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend has mentioned it tonight.
The overall message that I wish to give my hon. Friend to take to his constituents is that I understand the concerns about roads in Sussex. I could not do otherwise, given the continual pressure to which I am subjected—in a most welcome way—by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for Lewes. I understand the frustration that people must feel that we are unable to do more, more quickly. The decision to include the A27 scheme in DBFO was taken because that is the quickest way that we can deliver the benefits of that scheme, which are, of course, also related to the benefits from the A22 improvement.
We have tried to take account of the needs in our review and in the difficult choices that we have had to make in recent months. I hope that, as the programme unfolds, we will be able to deliver the sort of road infrastructure that industry in the area desperately needs, and to provide the environmental benefits and congestion relief that will be of great benefit to my hon. Friend's residential constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock.